DR. ROSS AND BISHOP COLENSO:
OR
THE TRUTH RESTORED
IN REGARD TO
POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY:
BY
THE REV. FREDERICK A. ROSS, D.D.,
OF HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA,
AND
THE RIGHT REV. JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D. D.,
LORD BISHOP OF NATAL.
PHILADELPHIA:
PUBLISHED BY HENRY B. ASHMEAD,
GEORGE STREET ABOVE ELEVENTH.
1857.




The two works which lie at the foundation of this publication are
the following:
" Slavery ordained of God. By Rev. Frederick A. Ross, D. D.,
Pastor of the Presbyterian Church, Huntsville, Alabama. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1857." pp. 186.
"Remarks on the Proper Treatment of Cases of Polygamy, as
found already existing in Converts from Heathenism. By John William Colenso, D. D., Lord Bishop of Natal. Printed by May & Davis,
Church street, Pietermaritzburg, [Africa,] 1855." pp. 27.
The latter of these works, as being in the hands of few persons in
this country, is printed entire. From the former, as having had a
somewhat extensive circulation, and as being easily accessible, only
such extracts have been made, with accompanying remarks, as to
present the substance of the arguments of Dr. Ross in favor of
slavery; to illustrate the coincidence of these arguments with those
of Bishop Colenso in favor of Polygamy; and to show that the arguments on these kindred subjects impart and derive mutual strength
by being brought together.




POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY.
THE Bible is a book written in a remote age, and in
languages which have long since ceased to be spoken in
the world. It was penned among a people comparatively rude; with little literature except that which is found
in their own sacred writings, and with little or no science;
in a land where the prevailing institutions, habits and
opinions, were exceedingly unlike those of modern times;
with no apparent anticipation on the part of the writers
that the productions of their pens would be subjected
to the rigid scrutiny of enlightened future ages, and no
underlying idea that the doctrines and laws of the book
would ever need to be adjusted to institutions and
opinions which would spring up in far distant ages,
and in lands of whose existence these writers never
dreamed.
It has come down to us through the darkest ages of
the world, and has brought along with itself many of
the opinions of those ages on moral subjects, and many
of the interpretations which were affixed- to it in those
times. There is nothing more difficult to remove than
interpretations long affixed to any book; and especially if those interpretations become incorporated with




4
religious doctrines. The interpretation and the doctrine
become, in popular estimation, identified, and the one is
regarded as being as sacred as the other. They are
alike sanctioned by immemorial belief; they become a
part of the creed of the church; they are upheld by all
the authority of Synods and Councils; they enter into
the literature of those times, and constitute a part of
the history of the world; they are venerated for their
antiquity; they are loved as truths that have guided
millions to a better world-that have sustained the saint
on the bed of death, and comforted martyrs amidst the
flames. It should be added, also, that those opinions
may become the basis on which the superstructure of a
powerful hierarchy has been reared, and the very props
of a religion that has secured a universal ascendancy
over mankind. To detach the interpretation, therefore,
from the book is to undermine the foundation of the
edifice:-and in the apprehension that this may be so,
all the real love of truth in the church, and all the affected zeal of an interested hierarchy will be aroused;
all that there is of love for the venerable, the ancient,
the pious, the holy-all the attachments to the system
formed from interest, from the love of power, or from
the hope of heaven, will be quickened into life.
Accordingly, in the history of religion, nothing has
been found to be more difficult, if not more hopeless,
than to detach false interpretations from the Bible;
there is nothing which is more likely to involve men in
peril than the attempt to substitute a new and more
rational interpretation in the place of one that has been
hallowed for ages.
It is well known, that in the views which prevail



5
ed in former ages in regard to the structure of the
earth, it became a most difficult thing to separate these
views from the prevailing interpretation of the Bible;
and for any one to entertain contrary views was regarded not merely as an error in science, but as a much more
vital matter-a heresy in the church. The prevailing
views in regard to astronomy and geography became
identified with the doctrines of the church, and to promulgate a doctrine on those subjects at variance with
what the Bible was supposed to teach, was regarded
as justifying the extremest forms of persecution for
heresy. In a council of clergymen that met in Salamanca in 1486, to examine and test the views of
Christopher Columbus, a considerable portion held it to
be grossly heterodox to believe that by sailing Westward the Eastern parts of the world could be reached.
No one, it was held, could entertain such a view without
also believing that there were "antipodes," and that
the world was round, not flat:-errors denounced not
only by great theologians of the golden age of ecclesiastical learning, such as Lactantius and St. Augustine,
but also directly opposed, it was alleged, to the very
letter of Scripture.  "They observed," says Washington Irving, "that in the Psalms the heavens are said to
be extended like a hide,-that is, according to commentators, the curtain or covering of a tent, which among
the ancient pastoral nations was formed of the hides of
animals; and that St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews,
compares the heavens to a tabernacle or tent extended
over the earth, which they thence inferred to be flat."*
Thus, also, it was in the well-known case of Galileo.
* Life of Columbus.
1*




6
The doctrine which he was required by the Church, to
"abjure, curse, and detest," and which "he was never
again to teach, because erroneous, heretical, and contrary to Scripture," was the doctrine of the earth's
motion and the sun's stability. The doctrine derived
by the Church from the Bible-a doctrine which had
become as sacred as any other doctrine held by the
Church-was, that the earth is the centre of the system, and that all the heavenly bodies revolve around it;
and it seemed no less difficult to separate that doctrine
from the teachings of the Bible, than it would have been
to detach from it the doctrine of the Fall of Man, or the
doctrine of the Trinity. So Voetius, a celebrated Dutch
theologian of the seventeenth century, says, " This we
affirm, that is, that the earth rests, and the sun moves
daily round it, with all divines, natural philosophers,
Jews and Mahommedans, Greeks and Latins, excepting
one or two of the ancients, and the modern followers of
Copernicus."
To show with what tenacity an interpretation of Scripture that has been received for ages as the true one is
adhered to, and how difficult it is to detach such an interpretation, however absurd or erroneous from the Bible,
it may be proper to refer to an argument of Turretin.
He is arguing, " in opposition to certain philosophers," in
behalf of the Ptolemaic doctrine that the sun moves in
the heavens and revolves around the earth, while the
earth itself remains at rest in the midst.'" First," he
remarks, " the sun is said in Scripture to move in the
heavens, and to rise and set.'The sun is as a bridegroom coming out of his chambers, and rejoiceth as a
strong man to run a race.''The sun knoweth his




7
going down.''The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth
down.' Secondly. The sun by a miracle stood still in
the time of Joshua, and by a miracle it went back in the
time of Hezekiah.  Thirdly. The earth is said to be
fixed immovably.'The earth is also established that it
cannot be moved.'' Thou hast established the earth,
and it abideth.''They continue this day according to
their ordinance.' Fourthly. Neither could birds, which
often fly off through an hour's circuit, be able to return
to their nests. Fifthly. Whatever flies or is suspended
in the air, ought by this theory, to move from west to
east, but this is proved not to be true, from birds, arrows
shot forth, atoms made manifest in the sun, and down
floating in the atmosphere."
From reasoning such as this, one of the most accomplished theologians of his age, and that age not a remote
one; one who lived after Tycho Brahe, Kepler and
Galileo had finished their labors; one who lived in the
time of Isaac Newton-for when the work containing
these sentiments was issued from the press, (1695,)
Newton had attained his fifty third year; one whose
system of theology has been long used as a text-book in
the Princeton Theological Seminary, and whose views
have been regarded as the standard in training men for
the ministry in the nineteenth century,-set himself
against the most remarkable discoveries of his age or of
any age. It is not wonderful, therefore, that old interpretations of the Bible, though founded in error, yet
long retain their hold on the public mind, even amidst
the light of a very advanced age of the world.
It has long been an opinion extensively held in the
world, that the Bible is adverse to slavery and polygamy.




8
In reference to slavery, it has been supposed that there
were many precepts in the New Testament particularly,
which are entirely hostile to the system, and which,
by their fair application would tend to remove slavery
from the world. It has been believed that the Bible
teaches the doctrine that all men are so far equal as to
be entitled to liberty; that although slavery was tolerated
in the Old Testament, it was not sanctioned there as a
permanent institution; and that, under the influence
of the Bible, a period would arrive when it would
cease. From the prevalence of this opinion, as it was
held by the early church, much was done to remove
slavery from the Roman empire:-for the fact of that
removal can be distinctly traced to what was supposed
to be the doctrine of the New Testament in regard to
the natural equality of man and to human rights.*
It was under the influence of these views that Wilberforce and Clarkson undertook to convince the world
that the slave-trade was wrong, and so to set forth the
evils of slavery as to secure universal emancipation; and
it was under the influence of these views that that unhappy measure was resorted to-the emancipation of
the slaves in the British West Indies-a measure which
has been so disastrous to agriculture and commerce,
and to the happiness alike of the whites and colored race
in those islands.t
These views also have been substantially held by
many of the most illustrious men of this Republic.
* Particularly of such passages as the following: Acts xx. 26,
Matt. vii. 12, Col. iv. 1, 1 Cor. vii. 21, Gal. iii. 28.
t "' JAMAICA IS DESTROYED."-Dr. Ross, p. 72. The capitals
are his. " The British West Indies," says Mr. Calhoun, in similar language, "are ruined, impoverished, miserable, wretched, and destined to be
abandoned to the black race."- Works, vol. vi. p. 310.




9
They were the views entertained by Jefferson, Jay,
Madison; by John Hancock, and by Samuel and John
Adams; by Patrick Henry, and by Washington.
These views had taken so firm a hold on the American
mind that they were substantially incorporated into the
Declaration of Independence,* and it was supposed that
they were destined to be co-extensive with every just
notion of liberty. This was becoming the prevailing
conviction alike at the South and the North. A very large
portion of the people of this land believed that these
views were in accordance with the Bible, and the progress of this opinion was rapidly tending to sweep away
the true doctrine in regard to the natural inequality of
men as God has made them, and the necessity of due
subordination in the different ranks of society, and was
thus tending to interfere dangerously with the domestic
institutions alike of the North and the South. That
these views were acquiring an alarming prevalence, and
were likely to extend still further, is admitted and deplored by Dr. Ross.
The Rev. Mr. Barnes, to whom       Dr. Ross's Letters
were addressed, had said, in the work to which Dr. Ross
responds,t " The present is eminently a time when the
* Dr. Ross, however, has shown that the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal; that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," are altogether
false, having their foundation in infidelity, and being dangerous to the
liberties of mankind. " All this," says he, " every word of it-every
jot and tittle-is the liberty and equality claimed by infidelity. God has
cursed it seven times in France since 1793, and he will curse it seventy
times seven, if Frenchmen prefer to be pestled so often in Solomon's
mortar."-p. 105. " That paragraph," referring to the introduction to
the Declaration of Independence, " is an excrescence on the tree of
liberty."-Ibid. See the argument in full on pp. 121-139.
t The Church and Slavery.




10
views of every man on the subject of slavery should be
uttered in unambiguous tones." On this Dr. Ross remarks:
"If the Bible does sanction the system, [of slavery,] then
that' unambiguous tone' will silence abolitionists who admit the
Scriptures; it will satisfy all good men, and give peace to the
country. That is the'tone' I want men to hear. Listen to it in
the past and present speech of Providence. The time was when
you had the very public sentiment you are now trying to form.
From Maine to Louisiana, the American mind was softly yielding
to the impress of emancipation, in some hope, however vague, and
imaginary. SOUTHERN, as well as Northern men in the church
and out of it, NOT HAVING SUFFICIENTLY STUDIED THE WORD OF
GOD, and, under our own and FRENCH revolutionary excitement,
looking only at the evils of slavery, wished it away from the land.
It was a MISTAKEN public sentiment. Yet such as it was, you had
it, and it was doing your work."-pp. 95, 96.
By a closer study of the Scriptures, however, and of
the true principles of liberty, it has been found that the
views which had been so long entertained in the Christian
Church, and which were so fast gaining ground in our own
country, were wholly erroneous, and it was important for
the true interests of the African race, for the peace and
prosperity of the country, and for the best influences of
religion on the master and the slave, that a check should
be put to these sentiments, and that the views of men
should be brought more into conformity with the teachings of the Bible. This process of thought and the
result, is thus stated by Dr. Ross:
"Meanwhile, many of your most pious men, soundest scholars,
and sagacious observers of providence, have been led to study the
Bible more faithfully in the light of the times, and they are reading it more and more in harmony with the views which have been
reached by the highest Southern minds, to wit: That the relation of




11
master and slave-is sanctioned by the Bible;-that it is a relation
belonging to the same category as those of husband and wife, parent and child, master and apprentice, master and hireling;-that
the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, were ordained
in Eden, for man, as man, and modified after the fall, while the
relation of slavery, as a system of labor, is only one form of the
government ordained of God over fallen and degraded man;-that
the evils in the system are the same evils of OPPRESSION we see in
the relation of husband and wife, and all other forms of government;-that slavery, as a relation, suited to the more degraded
or the more ignorant and helpless types of a sunken humanity, is,
like all government, intended as the proof of the curse of such
degradation, and at the same time to elevate and bless;-that the
relation of husband and wife, being for man, as man, will ever be
over him, while slavery will remain so long as God sees it best,
as a controlling power over the ignorant, and the more degraded
and helpless; and that, when he sees it for the good of the country, he will cause it to pass away, if the slave can be elevated to
liberty and equality, political and social, witl his master, in that
country; or out of that country, if such elevation cannot be given
therein, but may be realized in some other land: all which result
must be left to the unfoldings of the divine will, in harmony with
the Bible, and not to a newly-discovered dispensation. These
facts are vindicated in the Bible and Providence."
" The Southern slave-holder is now satisfied, as never before,
that the relation of master and slave is sanctioned by the Bible."
"I rejoice that the sober sense North and South, so strangely
asleep and silent, has risen up to hear the word of God and to
speak it to the land. I rejoice that all the South now know that
God gives the right to hold slaves, and, with that right, obligations they must fulfill. I rejoice that the day has dawned in
which the North and South will think and feel and act together
on the subject of slavery."-pp. 98, 99, 100, 101, 103.
It is not improbable that the world owes the first suggestion of these views, as now held by Dr. Ross and by
so many Christians at the South as well as at the North,
to that eminent statesman, the late John C. Calhoun.




12
His great mind was early turned to this subject, and he
brought all his vast powers to bear upon it, not only as
connected with the prosperity of the State of South
Carolina, and the condition of the South generally, but
in reference also to the true character and destiny of
the African race. The doctrine held by him was substantially the same as that now held by Dr. Ross-that
the African race is in a degraded condition in their own
country; that they are incapable of rising by themselves; that it is necessary in order to their elevation that
they should be brought into an intimate relation to a
more elevated and enlightened race; that the best form
in which this can be done is that of servants or slaves
under the control of a superior race; that the climate
of the South is not adapted to the white man as a place
of toil; that labor in the production of cotton, rice, and
sugar, can be best performed by the African, inured
always to that climate; that the character of the African is such that it is best for him to be at present in a
state of dependence, and that, in this condition, it may
be hoped that he will ultimately rise to a higher elevation than he could in his native land; that this has been
demonstrated in the undoubted fact that those now held
in slavery are in a much more elevated condition than
their own ancestors were in Africa, or than the various
tribes of the African race are now in their own land.
The existence of slavery, therefore, is not only essential
to the development of the resources of this country, but
is to be the medium by which the African is to rise to a
more elevated condition than he could ever hope to
attain in his own country.
These views are thus stated by Mr. Calhoun himself:




13
" He who regards slavery in those States simply under the relation of master and slave, as important as that relation is, viewed merely as a question of property to the slaveholding section of
the Union, has a very imperfect conception of the institution, and
the impossibility of abolishing it without disasters unexampled in
the history of the world. To understand its nature and importance fully, it must be borne in mind that slavery as it exists in.the Southern States, (including under the Southern, all the slaveholding States,) involves not only the political relation of the
master and slave, but also the social and political relations of the
two races, of nearly equal numbers, from different quarters of the
globe, and the most opposite of all others in every particular that
distinguishes one race from another. Emancipation would destroy these relations,-would divest the masters of their property,
and subvert the relation, social and political, that has existed
between the races from almost the first settlement of the Southern
States."- Works, vol. v. p. 203.
" Under this relation the two races have long lived in peace and
prosperity, and, if not disturbed, would long continue so to live.
While the European race has rapidly increased in wealth and
numbers, and, at the same time, has maintained an equality, at
least morally and intellectually, with their brethren of the nonslaveholding States, the African race has multiplied with not less
rapidity, accompanied by great improvement, physically and intellectually, and a degree of comfort which the laboring classes of
few other countries enjoy, and confedssely greatly superior to what
the free people of the same race possess in the non-slaveholding
States. It may, indeed, be safely asserted, that there is no example
in history in which a savage people, such as their ancestors were
when brought to this country, have ever advanced in the same period
so rapidly in numbers and improvement.
"To destroy the existing relations, would be to destroy this
prosperity, and to place the two races in a state of conflict, which
must end in the expulsion or extirpation of one or the other. No
other can be substituted compatible with their peace or security.
The difficulty is in the diversity of the races.  So strongly
drawn is the line between the two in consequence, and so strengthened by the force of habit and education, that it is impossible for
2




14
them to exist together in the same community, where their numbers
are so nearly equal as in the slaveholding States, under any other
relation than that which now exists. Social and political equality
among them is impossible. No power on earth can remove this
difficulty."- Works, vol. v. pp. 204, 205.
Again Mr. Calhoun says:
" To destroy the existing relation between the free and servile
races of the South would lead to consequences unparalleled in
history. They cannot be separated and live together in peace, in
harmony, or to their mutual advantage, except in their present
relation. Under any other, wretchedness, and misery, and desolation would spread over the whole South."-Works, vol. vi. p.
309.
It is not improbable, that even in the mind of Mr.
Calhoun, these views had their origin in his familiarity
with the best writings of the ancients; that he desired simply to re-produce in our country what had been
found to be conducive to the best condition of society in
the most elevated and refined states of antiquity, and that
in fact, the doctrines which he suggested, and which are
beginning to prevail so extensively at the South, are to
be traced ultimately to the views of domestic life which
placed the Greeks, particularly the Athenians, at the
head of the ancient world, and which contributed to make
Athens the model of a republic. Mr. Calhoun's mind
was not only one of extraordinary native power, but was
cultivated in the highest degree.     In early life his
familiarity with ancient literature had probably suggested to him those views which he afterwards developed
and defended, as embodying the best results of human
reasoning and experience as to what will most conduce
to the welfare of a state. It is certain that, in this re



15
spect, his views accord remarkably with those which had
been advanced by Plato and Aristotle, and which were
at the basis of the ideas entertained in Greece, of what
contributes to the perfection of a commonwealth. Those
views lay at the foundation of all that made Athens refined
in social life, and great in arts, in poetry, in eloquence.
It is well remarked in the Westminster Review, that
" Although the earliest asserters and organizers of democracy,
the Greeks were essentially an aristocratic people, cherishing and
aiming to realize institutions favorable to noble manners, highbreeding, refined humanity; favorable, in fact, to the rearing of
what we call'the gentleman.' They also valued not numbers but
quality. And it was by quality, in singular disproportion to
numbers, that they imprinted their image on history and effected
their lasting influence with mankind. Athens counted but 30,000
citizens. The whole Athenian State was not larger than Yorkshire.'The excellence of a commonwealth,' says Aristotle,' is
not to be estimated by its populousness or extent, but by its fitness for performing its proper functions. iHippocrates was a greater
physician than many physicians twice his size. Slaves' (that is, the
laboring and'meaner' class generally,)'sojourners and strangers
render a city populous, but do not make it great.'* Plato, in his
ideal state, treats the community at large merely as the platform
and soil for the raising of a superior class: the rulers or guardians,
highest specimens of the genus man. These, from infancy onwards, receive the most thoughtful and minutely considered education; they are nurtured in grand sentiments; guarded against
all disturbing influences: gymnastics and music must awaken and
ripen their physical and intellectual faculties. But this select
class was deprived of personal enjoyments; they are not allowed
to possess property, or even to use money; private family-life was
forbidden to them; and they could not so much as travel in their
own affairs.' Should it be objected,' says Plato,'that by these
privations they must enjoy less happiness than the other citizens,
* Aristotle,; Politics," b. iv. ch. 4.




16
we will reply, that a legislator ought to propose to himself the
happiness of a whole society, and not that of any single class of
citizens of which it is composed.'
" This ruling class on the summit was balanced by a drudging
slave-class at the base of the social edifice. The aim was not, nor
did it profess to be, justice tempered with mercy to every brother
man, but it was symmetry, beauty in the whole.'The whole is
before the parts,' says Aristotle, also;' so equally is the state
before the citizen. The parts are there for the sake of the whole;
the hand for the sake of the man, so also the citizen for the sake
of the state. And the noblest must rule, whether the others consent to it or not;' otherwise they would allow to Zeus himself,' if
he should come to live amnongst them, but equal rights with themselves.' "-Westminster Review, July 1857, pp. 8, 9.
The aim in the Athenian commonwealth, was to make
as much as possible, every citizen a " gentleman," a
"man of leisure, devoted to public affairs, and to the
culture of refined taste:"-an object which has been
sought so universally at the South in our own country,
and which has been reached so much more generally
there than at the North; an object which can be secured
only in connection with slavery, where, from the nature
of the case, one portion of the community, relieved from
the necessity of drudgery and toil, will have leisure to
devote time and talent to " public affairs, and to the culture of refined tastes."
"It is plain," says Aristotle, "that a life of mechanical
drudgery, or a life of haggling commerce, is totally incompatible
with that dignified life which it is our wish that our citizens
should lead, and totally adverse to that generous elevation of
mind with which it is our ambition to inspire them. The mere
trade of husbandry, the assiduous labor and minute attention
which it requires, would be destructive of that secure leisure
which is essential to the formation of their characters; and such




17
sordid cares would impede and obstruct the generous and manly
exertions by which virtue is displayed and confirmed. Men
habitually addicted to the lowly pursuits of providing necessaries and accumulating gain, are unfit members of our republic,
because they are incapable of relishing those enjoyments in which
we have supposed its chief happiness to consist."
"They," (the men occupied with providing necessaries, says
he, in continuation of the passage just cited,) "they are to be
classed with things necessary to the Commonwealth, but not to
be ranked with its citizens.t For the best and most perfect Commonwealth must provide for the happiness of all its members,
and a Commonwealth founded on virtue cannot provide for the
happinessof men who are but feebly touched by her charms.
Such men, therefore, though necessary to a Commonwealth, are
not parts of the Commonwealth, any more than food, though
necessary to an animal, is part of an animal; or that the instruments employed in producing any work, are themselves part of
that work."
The indispensable condition of reaching this elevation
in society, according to Aristotle, is slavery-the very
view which was suggested by Mr. Calhoun, and which
is becoming a prevailing doctrine in our country.' Cities or commonwealths," says Aristotle, ("Politics," b. iv. c. 91,) "are composed of families..... A
FAMILY TO BE COMPLETE MUST CONSIST OF FREEMEN AND
SLAVES."
The doctrine, also, as laid down by Mr. Calhoun, and
defended by Dr. Ross, was that on which the views of
Aristotle  and Plato were founded-that slavery is
essentially a form of government, and that the great
rule in regard to government is, that the most wise,
powerful, and enlightened must command; that " SOME
* Aristotle, " Politics," b. iv. ch. 9.
t The very doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United States, as
decided in the case of Dred Scott.
2*




18
ARE FORMED TO COMMAND, AND OTHERS TO OBEY;" and
that there is a class who are " naturally slaves, because
it is their interest to be so."  Thus Aristotle says:
" Government and subjection are things useful and necessary;
they prevail everywhere, in animated as well as in brute matter;
from their first origin, some natures are fbrmed to command, and
others to obey; the kinds of government and subjection varying
with the differences of their objects, but all equally useful for
their respective ends; and those kinds the best and most excellent, from which the best and most excellent consequences result.
In every composition whose parts are harmonized into any regular whole, the necessity of government and subjection evidently
appears, whether this whole or system be continuous or discrete,
animated or lifeless. Even in music, &c."............
"In compositions endowed with life, it is the province of mind to
command, and the province of matter to obey. Man consists of
soul and body, and in all men rightly constituted, the soul commands the body; although some men are so grossly depraved,
that in them the body seems to command the soul. But here the
order of nature is perverted.".. " The same observations apply
to the various tribes of animals, &c., which are all of them benefited by their subjection to man, because this is conducive to
their safety. In the different sexes, also, we see the male formed
for government, and the female for submission;" (hah!) " and a
principle prevailing thus universally in every region of nature,
cannot but apply to an institution so natural as is that of political
society."
" Those men, therefore," he continues, " those men whose powers are chiefly confined to the body, and whose principal excellence consists in affording bodily service, those, I say, are naturally slaves, because it is their interest to be so. They can obey
reason, though they are unable to exercise it; and though different from tame animals, who are disciplined by means merely of
their sensations and appetites, they perform nearly the same tasks,
and become the property qf other men, because their own safety requires it."*' Aristotle, " Politics," b. i. ch. 3.




19
It will be seen in the course of these remarks how
remarkably this language accords with the language of
Dr. Ross.
The views which were entertained by Plato and Aristotle, and which are so prevalent in our own country, were
long since also suggested to Xenophon. Thus he says:
" Manual occupations are dishonorable and unworthy of a citizen; most of them disfigure the body. They oblige a man to sit
in the shade or by the fire. They leave no time, neither for the
republic nor for friends."
And again, speaking of mechanics and manufacturers:
" What is one to do with people who mostly sit all day long,
nailed to their frames, and whose produce enervate the consumers, and only cause us to spend money."
So Plato remarks:
" Nature has of itself made neither shoemaker nor blacksmith;
such occupations degrade those who exercise them; vile mercenaries, whose trade excludes them from political rights."
It is probable that Mr. Calhoun in the views which
he entertained of slavery, looked at the subject mainly
from apolitical point of view, with no immediate and
direct reference to the religious character and destiny
of the African race. Eminent as he was, he was chiefly
distinguished as a statesman, and his great powers were
called forth rather with reference to the civil than to
the religious glory of his country; —rather to their
bearing on our nation's greatness, than to the elevation
of any of the degraded portions of mankind to a more
correct knowledge of God and of the way of salvation.
The doctrine suggested by Mr. Calhoun, however,




20
was susceptible of an application which he did not perceive, or to which he did not particularly turn his attention, in leading to the best means of imparting the blessings of the gospel to the sunken and degraded portions
of mankind. To Christian minds it could not but suggest
the question, whether the design of Providence was not,
in fact, to bring so large a portion of the African race
into close connection with a more elevated race, in order
that they might, in virtue of such a connection, be made
acquainted with the great truths of Christianity; that
they might be placed under the influence of Christian
masters, furnishing a daily illustration of the truth and
power of religion in the most tender relations of life; that
they might be trained in the midst of Christian institutions, far away from the associations and allurements of
a most degraded heathenism; and that thus, while, by removal from their own land, they would become emancipated from heathen influences, they might be placed
where, by daily exhibitions of the true nature of religion
they would gradually be elevated, and become ultimately
fitted for the enjoyment of rational and intelligent liberty.
In this view of the matter, the subject has an aspect of
the widest benevolence, and connects itself, not merely
with polished manners, and with national wealth, but with
the great operations of Christian charity of this age.
Some of the best minds, therefore, at the South and the
North-the true friends of religion, ministers of the
gospel and members of the churches, authors of books
and editors of periodicals —have been led to inquire
whether this is not the real cause why the natives of
Africa have been brought in such numbers to this land,
and whether with this view, and with reference to an




21
end so desirable, it will not be found, on a closer study
of the Bible, that it so far sanctions slavery as to justify
the present arrangements in regard to it in the United
States, and whether it is not the manifest will of God
that slavery should exist, and be perpetuated until an
object so desirable shall have been accomplished.
The result of this investigation is thus stated by Dr.
Ross, in a passage already referred to:
" The relation of master and slave is sanctioned by the Bible;
it is a relation belonging to the same category as those of husband
and wife, parent and child, master and apprentice, master and
hireling; the relation of slavery, as a system of labor, is only one
form of the government ordained of God over fallen and degraded
man."-p. 99. "The Southern slaveholder is now satisfied, as
never before, that the relation of master and slave is sanctioned
by the Bible."-p. 101.
Thus also he says, that the Bible commands the slave
to know
" The facts in his case as they are in the Bible, and have ever
been, and ever will be in Providence; that he is not the white
man's equal-that he can never have his level-that he must not
claim it, but that he can have, and ought to have, and must have,
all of good, IN HIS CONDITION AS A SLAVE, until God may reveal a
higher happiness for him in some other relation than he MUST
EVER BEAR to the Anglo-American."-p. 157, et saepe.
So also he is reported in the Richmond Whig to have
said in the Richmond Convention:
" I believe that slavery is ordained of God. It is a good to the
master, to the slave, and to the country, so long as He chooses to
continue it. It may have many evils, but, so long as it exists, it
must be regarded as a benevolent institution, which has elevated




22
a, portion of mankind from degradation, and given them all of
Christ that can be given to them."
By a singular coincidence also, it has occurred that
while the minds of statesmen and philanthropists in this
country were turned to the inquiry about the relation
of slavery to the Bible, a similar inquiry has been suggested in regard to polygamy, and with a similar result.
It has long been a prevalent opinion in the church that
the Bible is unfriendly to polygamy, and that the tendency of a circulation of the Scriptures and of the
spread of the Gospel, would be to remove it where it
exists, and to substitute views of the marriage relation
wholly inconsistent with the existence of that institution. The Fathers of the Christian Church in general,
though'not all, as Bishop Colenso has shown, held that
opinion; the opinion was adopted as an article of faith
for ages in the church; most of-the treatises on marriage
written under Christian influence have maintained that
opinion —the work of Milton being in fact almost the
only exception for ages; the laws of Christian countries are, for the most part, based on this idea; and the
opinion has been supposed to be an essential doctrine to
be propagated among the heathen, and to be urged upon
converts from idolatry. Nearly, if not quite all, the
missionary operations of this age have been conducted
on the idea that polygamy is contrary to the Bible, and
that in establishing churches among the heathen it was
necessary that converts from heathenism should separate themselves from all their wives but one.
This doctrine, however, has not worked well in the
missionary enterprise.  It has been attended with




23
evils which it has not been found practicable to remove, and has been, and is, a serious obstruction to the
propagation of Christianity in Pagan nations. It must,
from the nature of the case, be attended with great hardships when a man is compelled to part with so large a
portion of his family; to sunder ties that are so tender;
to send out a woman upon the world with all the
odium of being a rejected wife, and with no means of
support.  It is, and must be, a serious obstruction in
propagating the gospel when it comes in contact with
" domestic institutions,"  sustained by the laws, and
sanctioned by the habits of the people for centuries.
It has been found, also, that the views of missionaries
in regard to polygamy, not only tended in this way to
prevent the spread of Christianity, but that they also
tended to make men infidels-it being found impossible
to convince the heathen that a book which sets itself so
directly against established laws and customs, and which
claims the right to modify domestic arrangements to
such an extent, can be from God.
Some of these difficulties are thus stated by Bishop
Colenso:
" But the conscience of a man must revolt atfirst from the
present practice, however fearfully it may become blunted at last,
by perpetual reiteration of the law of the Mission Station, and
the (supposed) Will of the Almighty. The man, if he thinks at
all, must be utterly bewildered between the sense of his duty to
God, (or rather to the Teacher, who has become, as it were, a God
to him, and is framing anew for him his standard of right and
wrong,) and the dictates of his own heart and mind, which tell
him so truly, that, whatever he may be willing to do to secure his
soul's salvation, he has no right to sacrifice his wives, their feelings, their marriage-bonds, their rights, and the rights of their




24
children. For who shall marry them again? They have already
grown old in his service. Their youth and comeliness are gone.
They have their children it is true; and with these are they to be
cast forth, like Hagar into the desert, to become suppliants for
the charity of the first compassionate wayfaring Kafir? Or is
the Christian husband to pension them off, with the help of Mission Funds, (as I have heard was the case under a certain Missionary, no longer in the colony,) and to keep them in his neighborhood, within the reach of his counsel and assistance, for the
management and training of his children, compelled to live separate from other men, but as wives of his own no longer, not even
in name? Or is the husband to take possession of all the children?
and is the wife to go, like her of whom I have written in my Journal, to tell the story of her woe to the Missionary,-" You have
not only taken my husband from me, but my child also!"  And
these things are done in the name of Christianity? And this is
one of the very first notices, which the heathens are to receive, of
the working of that Gospel, which was to be' glad tidings of great
joy to all people.'
" I verily believe, that, in consequence mainly of the enforcement of this rule, our blessed religion already stinks in the nostrils of this people. It is not the purity, the charity, the piety,
which it enjoins-it is not this, which makes the native shrink,
with dislike and distrust, from the very first approach of a Missionary. The heart within them will confess to the excellency of
these things; their spirit will respond to the Law of God that it
is good, even when the flesh refuses to obey it. But here the
mind of the savage-the best instincts of his nature-his regard
for the sanctity of marriage, for the peace and welfare of his
family,-take part with his ignorance and evil passions in repelling the advances of the Missionary."
"Have the Missionaries ever duly considered this-the effect, I
mean, which the reception of the Gospel, on any large scale,
among this people, and the carrying out of their rule, would produce on the order of the colony, when every kraal and every hut,
almost, would be the scene of some enforced separation, and of
the hideous consequences that must follow, where so many married women, released from the law of their husbands and the




strict discipline of their native customs,-with their best feelings
outraged, and their passions inflamed, themselves and their children branded, in their people's eyes, with a name of dishonor,are turned loose upon their tribes?"-Remarks on Polygamy.
So deep-rooted has this attachment to the system of
polygamy become among the heathen, that it is a matter
of serious doubt whether it is possible to effect any immediate change, and whether the rules of the Missionaries on the subject ever have been complied with.  Thus
Bishop Colenso says:
" But the truth is, as I make bold to believe, that there is not
an instance to be produced, in all the experience of the Missionaries of Natal-American, Wesleyan, or Lutheran-of a man being brought to profess Christianity, who, before his conversion,
was a polygamist on any large scale, and who has accordingly submitted to the authority of his teacher, and put away all his wives
but one. There may, possibly, be a case or two produced, of a
man with two wives, who may have been induced, by the urgent
representations of the Missionary, and severe denunciations of
the Divine displeasure, to put away one of them: and I venture
to say that, if the truth were told, there would be in every such
ease some piteous tale of'wrong,' like that of the Kafir woman,
whose words I have above quoted. But has any man with three,
four, or more wives, consented to this practice? In other words,
has any chief man of the district, in his maturer years, become a
Christian?"-Ibid.
It has become, therefore, a serious inquiry, whether
the true teachings of the Bible on the subject have not
been misunderstood; and whether instead of insisting
that converts from heathenism should at once separate
themselves from so large a portion of their families, and
abandon them to want-rudely and harshly sundering
most tender ties, and preventing the general reception
3




of the Gospel-it would not be more in accordance with
the principles of the Bible to tolerate for a time what
seems to be an evil; to admit true converts to the
Church without requiring them     at once to put away
their wives; to bring their wives and children under the
influence of the Gospel, and to trust to time, and to a
gradual increase in knowledge, for removing polygamy
itself, believing that under the influence of the Gospel,
the evil, so far as it is an evil, will work its own remedy
in the same manner in which the gentle influences of the
Gospel will gradually remove the evils of slavery.
To this conclusion, Bishop Colenso, after a careful
consideration of the subject, and of the practical workings of the teachings of missionaries on heathen ground,
has come-in language remarkably similar to that of
Dr. Ross on the kindred subject of slavery. Thus he
says:
"Having observed, in the Natal journals of late, some articles
on the subject of polygamy, which require, I think, a reply from
those who have given more serious attention to the question than the
writers of the said articles appear generally to have done, I have
thought it proper to set on paper the following observations.
"I certainly expressed a doubt, in my published Journal,
whether the method, at present adopted by the Missionaries, of
requiring a man, who had more than one wife, to put away all
but one, before he could be received to Christian Baptism, was
the right way of accomplishing this end. I have since given
much closer consideration to the question, and I have now no
hesitation in saying, that I believe the above-mentioned rule to
be unwarranted by Scripture, opposed to the practice of the Apostles, condemned by common reason, and altogether unjustifiable.
"Polygamy was a state of life-a permanent condition-not a
temporary, occasional condition, in which the man might be
found to-day, but not to-morrow. Thus a man might be subject




27
to fits of passion, or of drunkenness; but they would be no bar
to his becoming a Christian. Rather, if he were sincere in his
desire to get the better of all this evil, he would be encouraged to
seek the strength of God, by coming to Holy Baptism. Nor, should
he afterwards be overtaken in a fault, and be overcome by his
besetting sin, would he, therefore, be at once excommunicated or
expelled from the Church.
"But if polygamy be pronounced positively sinful in itself,
without regard being had to the state of moral culture and civilization, in which a man has hitherto been living, it would be a
complete bar to his being received into the Church at all."
Bishop Colenso, after considering the argument from
the Bible in favor of polygamy, then states what is the
true way of preaching the Gospel to the heathen so as
to avoid the evils which have thus far attended every
effort to introduce it when it is held that polygamy is
contrary to the Bible. His views on this point are
remarkably in accordance with the views of Dr. Ross as
to the method of preaching the Gospel in those portions
of our country where slavery exists. Thus he says:
"Nor do I believe there will be anything done effectively to
this end until a system is adopted more in accordance with the
true spirit of Christianity, and the example of the Apostles themselves. If I am asked to say plainly what I desire, and, as far as
I have any influence and power, intend by God's grace to do in
this matter, I say then plainly, not to require the putting away
of wives by natives, married previously to the reception of Christianity. As I have stated before, I dare not do so: I dare not
even recommend it to any man. If the unbelieving wife wishes
to depart from her husband, so be it. But if not, I am bound to
tell him that it is his DUTY to keep her, and to cherish her as his
wife, until'death parts them.'
"Instead of opening Missionary Stations, as refuges for the
disorderly and discontented, it is my intention to send Missionaries direct to the heathen kraals, first to acquire the language




28
and become familiar with the habits of the people, and then to
settle permanently, and live and labor in the midst of them. Of
course, we shall require a central Station, where different operations may be carried on, such as are detailed in my Journal;
where a native village may by degrees be formed of a higher
class, from among the most promising and willing converts in
different parts of the country; and where superior schools may
be conducted, with a view of training native teachers. But I am
persuaded that the main work of converting the natives is to be
attempted, and, by God's help and blessing, accomplished, only
by establishing schools and schoolmasters in direct connection
with the native villages-some five or six, or perhaps ten of which
may be placed under the supervision of each Missionary Clergyman. And the first step I would take towards introducing
such schools, and securing the favor of the chiefs towards them,
would be to assure them most positively, that uwe do not intend to
interfere with their married life, as already constituted-that we
do not think it necessary, nor according to God's Will and the
demands of our holy religion, to require them to signalize their
acceptance of Christianity by a direct act of perfidy and wrong."
Thus also Dr. Ross, on the right treatment of slavery,
says:
" Slavery is to continue for the good of the slave-until another and better destiny may be unfolded."   "The present
slaveholder stands exactly in the NICK of time and of place, in the
course of Providence, where wrong, in the transmission of Afiican slavery, ends, and right begins." "Slavery is wise, good,
yea best, in certain circumstances, until, in the elevating spirit
and power of the Gospel, the slave is made fit for the liberty
and equality of the master, if he can ever be so lifted up."-pp.
5, 155, 157, 183.
The points which are established in the two works
now under consideration, in respect to Polygamy and
Slavery, are the following:
(1.) Both are very ancient institutions. They are
found, and found alike, in the very infancy of society,




29
and appear to have sprung up simultaneously with the
other social and domestic arrangements which were
found to be necessary for the good of mankind. Even
if it could not be demonstrated that they, like the institution of marriage, had an express divine sanction in
the beginning, it would seem that like the early discoveries in the arts necessary for life, or contributing
to the comforts of society-the arts of tillage and pasturage, (Gen. iv. 2, 3;) the art of tent-making, (Gen.
iv. 20;) the improvement of the breeding of cattle, and
the skill evinced in subjecting them to domestic use,
(Gen. iv. 20;) the discovery of the use of metals, (Gen.
iv. 22;) and the invention of instruments of music, (Gen.
iv. 21,) they had a very early origin; and sprang, like
those inventions and arts, from the necessities of society.
Indeed, it is difficult to determine which of these had
the priority in the perceived necessities of mankindwhether slavery, polygamy, the invention of instruments
of music, the use of metals, or the art of tent-making.
It would seem not improbable that polygamy and slavery in fact preceded, in the order of time, most of those
discoveries and inventions, as they were more immediately demanded for the comfort of mankind than the
use of musical instruments, and would more early occupy the attention of men than the questions about
property in cattle.
Thus Dr. Ross, speaking of the fact that slavery is
in accordance " with the unfoldings of the divine will,"
traces it up to the earliest periods of the world. The
facts in regard to its early existence, he says, "stare
us in the face:" "In the family of Abraham-in Hagar,
running away under her mistress's hard dealing unto
3*




30
her, and yet sent back, as a fugitive slave,* by the angel
-in the law which authorized the Hebrews to hold their
brethren as slaves," etc.
In like manner, it is clear from Dr. Ross, that polygamy had an origin at least as early in the history of mankind, and in the necessities of society. Thus he says, " God
made no law against polygamy in the beginning.t Therefore it was no sin," that is, in the beginning, " for a man
to have more wives than one.     God sanctioned it, and
made laws in regard to it. Abraham had more wives
than one; Jacob had, David had, Solomon had." p. 44.
He might have added, that at a much earlier period-at
the very period designated above as that of the most remarkable discoveries and inventions-when the attention
of mankind was first turned to breeding cattle-to the
construction of tents-to the use of metals-and to music, (Gen. iv.) a patriarch-Lamech "took unto him two
wives," (Gen. iv. 19,)-thus early illustrating a principle
which seems to have run extensively through society, that
the most valuable inventions, and the most useful customs
in life, have sprung up in groups, the one suggesting, or
drawing on the other by a law of association that has
contributed more than anything else to the real progress
of the race.  Thus the art of printing, in a later age,
drew in its train innumerable blessings connected with
The circumstance here alluded to shows also, that the provisions
of the Fugitive Slave Law, to-wards which so much opposition has
been manifested by Northern fanatics, is in exact accordance with
the teachings of the Bible:-the propriety of the law being established not only by the fact that Hagar was sent back " as a fugitive
slave," but particularly that this was done " hy the angel." This fact
may be further referred to, as justifying the Apostle Paul in sending
back Onesimus, as it justifies also, all the provisions of the " Fugitive
Slave Law."
t The italics here are by the author of these remarks.




31
civil, social, and domestic life; and so in the period of
the world referred to in Genesis iv., at the time of the
discovery of the use of "cattle," and of the value of
brass and iron; when men began to "dwell in tents,"
and when they invented instruments of music, these
facts drew along with them the blessings of polygamy
and slavery.
The views of Bishop Colenso in regard to the antiquity of the institution of polygamy, is in entire accordance with these facts and with the views of Dr. Ross.
Thus he says: " There is no question that the practice
of polygamy was not only tolerated among the Jews,
but even sanctioned by the examples of eminent and
pious men among them, and, in one instance, by the
words of a Prophet, uttering a direct message from the
Almighty. For, not to mention other cases, that will
readily occur to the reader, we have those of Abraham,
the' father of the faithful,' and David, the' man after
God's own heart,' who were both polygamists."*
(2.) It is established, in like manner, in xegard to polygamy and slavery, that they are both "patriarchal"
institutions.
That slavery is a "' patriarchal" institution, having the
sanction of the best men of ancient times, has been amply demonstrated by Dr. Ross.  Thus, in referring to
the "facts" on the subject as illustrated by " the Bible
and Providence," he says, addressing Mr. Barnes:
"In the Old Testament, they stare you in the face:-in the
family of Abraham,-in his slaves, bought with his money and
born in his house,-in Ilagar, running away under her mistress's
- The very cases referred to by Dr. Ross.




32
hard dealing with her, and yet sent back, as a fugitive slave, by
the angel,-in the law which authorized the Hebrews to hold
their brethren as slaves for a time,-in which parents might sell
their children into bondage,-in which the heathen were given to
the Hebrews as their slaves forever,-in which slaves were considered so much the money of their master, that the master who
killed one by an unguarded blow was, under certain circumstances, sufficiently punished in his slave's death, because he
thereby lost his money,-in which the difference between manstealing and slave-holding is, by law, set forth,-in which the runaway from heathen masters may not be restored, because God
gave him the benefits of an adopted Hebrew."-pp. 100, 101. See
also pp. 58-64.
The same thing, also, has been fully demonstrated
both by Dr. Ross and Bishop Colenso in regard to polygamy. Thus Dr. Ross, in a passage already referred
to, in reply to a question put to him in debate, whether
he " regarded the Bible as sustaining the polygamy of
the Old Testament," says:
"Yes, sir; yes, sir, yes, sir; I fearlessly tell what the Bible
says. In its strength, I am not afraid of earth or hell. I fear
only God. a God made no law against polygamy in the beginning.
Therefore it was no sin for a man to have more wives than one.
God sanctioned it, and made laws in regard to it. Abraham had
more wives than one; Jacob had, David had, Solomon had. God
told David, by the mouth of Nathan, when he upbraided him with
ingratitude for the blessings he had given him, and said,'And I
gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom.'" (2 Sam. xii. 8.)-pp. 44, 45.
The same point has been demonstrated, and by a reference to the same facts, in the following language by
Bishop Colenso: " Not to mention other cases, that will
readily occur to the reader, we have those of Abraham,
the'father of the faithful,' and David, the'man




33
after God's own heart,' who were both polygamists; so
that, certainly, it is possible that the practice should coexist with a very high degree of excellence and holiness
of life." Bishop Colenso then refers, in proof of the
fact that it was " freely permitted among the Jewish
people," to Deut. xxi. 15, 16, and in connection with this,
quotes the very passage, referred to by Dr. Ross, from 2
Sam. xii. 8, " I gave thly master's wives into thy bosom."
Both institutions,. therefore, are patriarchal. In this
respect they are on the same basis. Both have been
"sanctioned" by good men; by the examples of the
most eminent saints that the world has known; by men
who are held up as models to all coming times; by men
of " whom the world was not worthy," Heb. xi. 38, and
it must be presumed that these facts were recorded that,
in this, as in other respects, they might illustrate what
would be the best type of character and of social life in
coming ages. Whatever may be said, therefore, to
the contrary, the slaveholder and the polygamist may
shelter themselves under the authority and sanction of
these eminent men, and can feel no rebukes of conscience in modes of life that have so illustrious and so
pure examples.
(3.) Both institutions were "legislated" for in the
Old Testament; that is, they entered into a part of the
arrangements of society in reference to which laws were
enacted. These laws were made not for removing
either as an evil, but for regulating them in the same
way as laws were made to regulate the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward.
Thus, of slavery, Dr. Ross has shown, that "the relation of master and slave is sanctioned by the Bible; that




34
it is a relation belonging to the same category as those
of husband and wife, parent and child, master and apprentice, master and hireling," p. 99; that "the sun
will grow dim with age before that Scripture [Lev. xxv.
44, 46,] can be tortured to mean anything else than
just what it says: that God commanded the Israelites to be
slaveholders in the strict and true sense over the heathen,"
p. 148; that "Abraham lived in the midst of a system
of slaveholding exactly the same in nature with that in
the South-a system ordained of God as really as the
other forms of government around him"-making himself the master of slaves-men, women, and children,
"BY THE DIVINE BLESSING," and "controlling them as
property, just as really as the Southern master in the
present day," p. 153.
What has thus been shown to be true in regard to
slavery, has also been demonstrated respecting polygamy. That was equally the subject of divine legislation and care. Thus Dr. Ross: " The Bible sustains
the polygamy of the Old Testament," p. 44. "It was
no sin for a man to have more wives than one." Ibid.
"God sanctioned it, and MADE LAWS in regard to it;"
that is, he legislated for it. Ibid.
So Bishop Colenso: "We have the passage in Deuteronomy," [xxi. 15, 16,] "which distinctly recognizes
polygamy, as freely permitted among the Jewish people."  So he says, also, in reference to the passage
above quoted from 2 Sam. xii. 8-" I gave thee thy
master's wives unto thy bosom"-that this was an
"express blessing from the Almighty."
But it was scarcely necessary for either Dr. Ross or
Bishop Colenso to have labored this point at all. To




the plainest apprehension it is clear that very much of
the legislation in the books of Moses pertains to the
relations of slavery and polygamy; that numerous laws
were ordained designed to regulate both these relations;
that they were both regarded as states of society which
would exist in the Hebrew Commonwealth as certainly as
the relation of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, master and apprentice, and, what is
material to the present point, that there is as much legislation for one case as for the other. Both seem to be
placed on the same basis in the Old Testament, and
whatever considerations a Jew might have urged as justifying slavery, either from the antiquity of the custom,
the example of holy men, or the laws of Moses, the
same considerations could have been urged by him in
favor of polygamy. Although,, therefore, there is no
direct evidence that either David or Solomon was a
slaveholder, and, therefore, slaveholding has not the
sanction of their example as polygamy has, yet it
is clear that they could have justified the fact that they
had numerous wives on the same ground on which any
slaveholder of their time could have justified slavery,
and by the same considerations on which Dr. Ross now
justifies slavery in the Southern States.
(4.) A more material consideration is, that both are
placed on the same level in the New  Testament. It
might be questionable whether the legislation of Moses
in either case was designed to be permanent, and was
not intended to be superseded by the brighter revelation
of the Gospel, and to some minds it might not be clear
that the example of the patriarchs was designed to furnish a guide in future times in either of those respects,




any more than that the drunkenness of Noah, the incest
of Lot, the duplicity of Abraham and Jacob, or the acts
of murder and adultery into which David was betrayed,
were designed to be examples to holy men of future
generations-for although they are held up as examples, (Hebrews xi. et saepe,) it is not so clear that in
these respects they are to be our examples, and it might
have been doubted, therefore, whether it was designed
that, as polygamists and slaveholders, they should be
regarded as examples for future ages. It was very important, therefore, to show that both polygamy and
slavery are sanctioned by the New Testament, or that
neither of them is declared to be a "sin."  On this
point the arguments of Dr. Ross and Bishop Colenso
coincide, as showing that however the Gospel may tend
to remove the incidental evils of the two systems, they
are not to be regarded as sinful, even if it should be admitted that the general "spirit" of the New Testament
is against the two systems, and that the ultimate effect
of the Gospel might tend greatly to modify them, or
possibly in some future age, and in a greatly improved
condition of society, wholly to remove them. But in
regard to the main point, the sinfulness of the two systems, it is shown by Dr. Ross and Bishop Colenso that
they are on a level in the New Testament.
The facts on this point, as apparent from the nature
of the case, and the statements of Dr. Ross and Bishop
Colenso, are the following:
(a.) The Saviour found both systems existing in his
time. This is distinctly asserted by Bishop Colensoand indeed is a point which could not be called in question.  Thus he says, "We come now to the times of




the New Testament. And here it is unnecessary to remark (what is generally unnoticed by those who hastily
argue on this subject) that the Jews, in our Lord's time,
and after it, wzere decided polygamists."  The same
thing is assumed and asserted by Dr. Ross in regard to
slavery; and though it must be admitted that no decided
instance has ever been pointed out in which the Saviour
came in contact with slavery, and no clear evidence
has been furnished of its existence in Palestine in the
time of the Saviour, yet it is so constantly assumed and
asserted by those best read in the history of those times,
that this was so, that it is unreasonable to call it in
question, and the point may be regarded as demonstrated.
(b.) Both were tolerated by the Saviour and his Apostles. This has been fully shown by Dr. Ross in regard
to slavery. Thus he says, (p. 101,) in speaking of the
fact that slavery is " vindicated in the Bible and Providence:"  "In the New Testament-where the slavery
of Greece and Rome was recognized-in the obligations
laid on the master and slave-in the close connection of
this obligation with the duties of husband and wife, parent and child-in the obligations to return the fugitive
slave to his master-and in the condemnation of every
abolition principle'AS DESTITUTE OF TIIE TRUTH.'" See
also pp. 176, 185, et passim.
The same thing has been shown by Bishop Colenso in
regard to polygamy. Thus he says, speaking of the
teaching of the Saviour, " Though, among those addressed by our Lord, there must have been men with more
than one wife, He never condemns this as sinful and
displeasing in God's sight:" a fact remarkably in accordance with the teaching of the Saviour and the apos4




38
ties in regard to slavery-and, a fact about which there
can be no dispute with those who are familiar with the
New Testament.     It is very evident, nay it is certainas will be seen by a reference to the proofs in the Essay
of Bishop Colenso, and from the well-known facts in
Jewish history, that polygamy did exist in the time of
the Saviour, and it seems hardly credible that in the
whole course of his ministry, mingling as he did freely
with all classes of men, he should never have come in
contact with it; and yet it is strictly true, that however
many such cases may have occurred, he never, in reference to any specific case, required a separation of husbands and wives, and according to Dr. Ross,* never condemns it as "sinful" or wrong.     In this respect, therefore, the two systems are on a level.
(c.) Neither polygamy nor slavery is condemned in
the New Testament as " sin."
Then Dr. Ross says, of slavery, " Let the Northern
philanthropist learn from the Bible, that the relation of
master and slave is not sin per se.   Let him   learn that
God says nowhere it is sin.   Let him    learn that sin is
the transgression of the law; and that the Golden Rule
may exist in the relations of slavery."    p. 6.  So also,
Dr. Ross says:
-' " Christ and his apostles do not declare polygamy to be a sin." Dr.
Ross, p. 45. It is true, that Dr. Ross (Ibid.) says that " Polyganay now
is sin:"-but it is difficult to see how this can be when, on the same
page he says, that it is " not because it is in itself sin;" " that Christ
and his apostles did not declare polygamy to be sin," and that the
only design in prohibiting it at all is, in his language, " to restrain
the natural and social evil, and to bring out a higher humanzity." Ibid.
A condition znay possibly yet arise where it would be possible in connection with polygamy " to bring out a higher hueanity," and if so,
then polygamy would cease to be a sin altogether. That is, it is not,
in fact, a sin at all.




39
"The precepts in Colossians iv. 18, 23, 1 Tin. vi. 1-6, and other
places, show, unanswerably, that God as really sanctioned the relation of master and slave as those of husband and wife, and parent and child; and that all the obligations of the moral law, and
Christ's law of love, might and must be as truly fulfilled in the
one relation as the other. The fact that he has made the one set
of relations permanent, and the other more or less dependent on
conditions of mankind, or to pass away in the advancement of
human progress, does not touch the question. He sanctioned it
under the Old Testament and the New, and ordains it now while
he sees it best to continue it, and he now, as heretofore, proclaims
the duty of the master and the slave." pp. 64, 65.
In fact, a considerable part of Dr. Ross' book is occupied in making this point clear, that the Bible nowhere
speaks of slavery as a sin. See particularly pp. 176-185.
The same thing is also shown to be the teaching of
the New Testament, as well as the Old, in regard to
polygamy. Thus, in a passage already quoted in a
note, Dr. Ross says: " CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES DO
NOT DECLARE POLYGAMY TO BE A SIN."        The polygamist, therefore, should not regard himself as committing
sin. There may be reasons why polygamy may be undesirable, and on account of those reasons Christianity may ultimately remove it from the world; but men
should never regard it as a thing to be prohibited or removed because it is a "sin;" and he who condemns it
as a " sin," is clearly opposed to the teaching of " Christ
and his apostles."
It goes far to confirm this argument of Dr. Ross, that
Bishop Colenso has arrived at the same conclusion by
an independent line of thought. Thus of polygamy,
and of the practice of the missionaries in requiring converts from  heathenism to separate themselves from all
their wives but one, he says: " I have no hesitation in




40
saying, that I believe the above mentioned rule" [the
rule requiring this] " to be unwarranted by Scripture,
opposed to the practice of the apostles, condemned by
common sense, and altogether unjustifiable."
(d.) It has, in like manner, been demonstrated by Dr.
Ross and Bishop Colenso, that slavery and polygamy
should be treated in the same way in the church, and in
civil communities.  Neither is to be regarded as in itself
an evil, though both may be connected with such evils or
abuses as may need to be corrected. But there should
be no attempt to correct those evils suddenly, and especially when they are sanctioned by law. In the two systems there are too many interests involved in the relations
of masters and slaves, and of husbands and wives and children, and too many rights in the community that may be
jeoparded by any sudden and violent movement, to justify
an effort suddenly to bring either of these relations to an
end. It should be left to the slow but certain influence of
the gospel, in gradually removing the evils incident to
either system; and in reference to both, the interests of
religion and humanity require that nothing shall be done,
until it will be found to be for the " good" of those who
sustain those relations.  The gospel would tend silently
and gradually to remove whatever evils these may be, as
growing out of abuse in the two relations, as it will the
incidental wrongs and cruelties which may at any time
grow out of the relation of husband and wife, parent and
child,* and if the time should ever occur, when it would be
for the' good" of all concerned, that the relations should
* " I say deliberately, that he who will make the horrid examination will discover in New York city, in any number of years past,
more cruelty from husband to wife, parent to child, than in all the
Southfrom master to slave in the same time."-Dr. Ross, p. 53.




41
cease entirely, the gospel will, by a fair application, ultimately secure the result.
Thus Dr. Ross says of slavery, " that it will remain so
long as God sees it best, as a controlling power over the
ignorant, the more degraded and helpless; and that, when
he sees it for the good of the country, he will cause it to
pass away, if the slave CAN BE elevated to liberty and
equality, political and social, with his master, in that
country; or out of that country, if such elevation cannot be given therein, but may be realized in some other
land: all which result must be left to the unfoldings of
the divine will." pp. 99, 100.  So again, (p. 6,) "Let
the Northern philanthropist learn that equality is only
the highest form of social life; that subjection to authority, even slavery, may, in given conditions, be for a
time better than freedom to the slaves of any complexion. Let him learn that slavery, like all evils, has its
corresponding and GREATER good; that the Southern
slave, though degraded comparbd with his master, is
elevated and ennobled compared with his brethren in
Africa."
So also he says, (pp. 156, 157:)
"What, then, does God commanind him [the master] to do?
Does God require him to send the negro back to his heathen
home from whence he was stolen? That home no longer exists.
But, if it did remain, does God command the master to send his
Christianized slave into the horrors of his former African heathenism?  No. God has placed the master under law entirely
different from his command to the slave-trader. God said to the
trader, Let the negro alone. But he says to the present master,
Do unto the negro all the good you can; makle him a civilized
man; make him a Christian man; lift him ztp and give him all
he has a right to claim in the good of the iohole community. This
4*




42
the master can do; this he must do, and then leave the result with
the Almighty.
"We reach the same conclusion by asking, What does God say
to the negro-slave?
"Does he tell him to ask to be sent back to heathen Africa?
No. Does he give him authority to claim a created equality and
unalienable right to be on a level with the white man in civil and
social relations?  No. To ask the first would be to ask a great
evil; to claim the second is to demand a natural and moral impossibility. No. God tells him to seek none of these things.
But he commande him to know the facts in his case as they are
in the Bible, and have ever been, and ever will be in Providence:
that he is not the white man's equal-that he can never have his
level-that he must not claim it; but that he can have, and ought
to have, and must have, all of good, in his condition as a slave,
until God may reveal a higher happiness for him in some other
relation than that he must ever have to the Anglo-American. The
present slaveholder, then, by declining to emancipate his bondman,
does not place himself in the guilt of the man-stealer or of those
who had complicity with him; but he stands exactly in that NICK
of time and place, in the course of Providence, where wrong, in the
transmission of African slavery ends, and right begins."
So, also, the Apostle Paul taught the same thing.
The spirit of what he taught is conveyed in the following paraphrase by Dr. Ross, pp. 182, 183, 184:
"I found slavery in Asia, in Greece, in Rome. I saw it to
be one mode of the government ordained of God. I regarded
it, in most conditions of fallen mankind, necessarily and irresistibly part of such government, and therefore as natural, as wise,
as good, in such conditions, as the other ways men are ruled in
the state or family.
"I took up slavery, then, as such ordained government-wise,
good, yea best, in certain circumstances, until, in the elevating
spirit and power of my gospel, the slave is made fit for the liberty
and equality of his master, if he can be so lifted up. Ihence I
make the RULE of magistrate, subject, master and servant, parent




43
and child, husband and wife, TIIE SAME RULE; i. e. I make it THE
SAIME RIGHT in the superior to control the obedience and the service
of the inferior, bound to obey, whatever the difference in the relations and service to be rendered. Yea, I give exactly the same
commandel to all in these relations; and thus, in all my words, I
make it plainly to be understood that I regard slavery to be as
righteous a mode of government as that of magistrate and subject, parent and child, husband and wife, during the circumstances and times in which God is pleased to have it continue. I saw
all the injustice, the oppression, the cruelty, masters might be
guilty of, and were and are now guilty of; but I saw no more
injustice, oppression, and cruelty, in the relation of master and
slave, than I saw in all other forms of rule-even in that of husband and wife, parent and child. In my gospel I condemn
wrong in all these states of life, while I fully sanction and sustain the relations themselves. I tell the magistrate, husband,
father, master, how to rule; I tell the subject, wife, child, servant, how to submit. Hence, I command the slave not to flee
from bondage, just as I require the subject, the wife, the child,
not to resist or flee from obedience. I warn the slave, if he
leaves his master he has sinned, and must return; and I make it
the duty of all men to see to it, that he shall go back. Hence, I
myself did what I command others to do: I sent Onesimus back
to his master.
" Thus I sanction slavery everywhere in the New Testament."
The evils of polygamy are to be removed in the same
way as those of slavery, and it is remarkable that Bishop Colenso has specified the proper way of treating the
subject in language remarkably similar to that which
Dr. Ross has employed on the subject of slavery.      "I
am persuaded," says he, "that the main work of converting the natives is to be attempted, and, by God's
help and blessing, accomplished only by establishing
schools and schoolmasters in direct connection with the
native villages-some five or six, or, perhaps, ten of




44
which may be placed under the supervision of each missionary or clergyman. And the first step I would take,
towards introducing such schools, and securing the favor of the chiefs towards them, would be to assure them
most positively, that we do not intend to interfere with
married life as already constituted." " If the unbelieving
wife wishes to depart from her husband, so be it. But
if not, I am bound to tell him it is his DUTY to keep her,
and cherish her as his wife, until'death parts them.' "
So Dr. Ross on slavery: "Slavery is of God, and to
continue for the good of the slave, the good of the master, the good of the whole American family, until another and a better destiny be unfolded." p. 5.
The sum of the teachings of the Bible on these subjects, as shown by Dr. Ross and Bishop Colenso, is, that
slavery and polygamy are patriarchal and Scriptural
institutions; that they are sanctioned by the example of
the best men of ancient times-among others, by the
" father of the faithful," and the " man after God's own
heart;" that they have been equally supported by legislation in the Bible; that neither of them is condemned
in the Bible, as a  sin," either in the Old Testament or
in the New; that though there are evils incident to both
systems, yet there are also evils in every relation of
life-in the relations of husband and wife, parent and
child, guardian and ward, master and apprentice; that
the way to remedy these evils is not madly to attack
the system as sinful, but to apply the Gospel in preparing the minds of men to remove them, and to wait
the certain operation of time; that it may be hoped
the Gospel, in its mild and happy influences, will, in
due time, prepare men to put away the evils incident to




45
the two systems, as it will the evils incident to the relations of husband and wife, and the abuses of government;
that a period may arrive when it would be for the good
of all concerned that the relations themselves should
cease, but that the coming of that period is dependent
wholly on the Providence of God; and that any undue
agitation of the subject-either of slavery in the Southern States, or of polygamy in the kraals of Africawould only tend to rivet the chains of slavery more
firmly in the one case, and make the condition of the
African wife more undesirable in the other.
It cannot but be hoped that the almost simultaneous
publication of two independent treatises on these subjects, so materially correcting the prevailing interpretations of the Bible, will have some very important effects on the general interests of religion in the world.
To some of these effects it may be proper to advert in
the conclusion of these remarks.
First. These views must have an important bearing on the propagation of religion, especially in removing obstructions which have been hitherto found to be
almost insuperable in the spread of Christianity.
The views entertained by the Christian church in regard to polygamy, have been at all times a great hindrance in the efforts to spread the gospel among the heathen. In fact the doctrine that in order to the reception
of the gospel, it was necessary for men to sunder the ties
which bound them to their wives, and almost entirely to
break up their domestic arrangements before they could
become Christians, has constituted an obstacle in spreading Christianity among the heathen, scarcely less seri



46
ous than it would be in a community where monogamy
is the prevailing custom, to require men, in order to embrace a new form of religion, to become anchorites, and
to withdraw wholly from the amenities and comforts of
domestic life.  Among the heathen where polygamy
prevails, as it does now, and always has done extensively,
all that there is in the antiquity of the custom, in the fact
that it is protected by the laws, in the idea that it contributes, as wealth does with us, to respectability of position, and indicates elevation of rank, as well as all the
tenderness of affection existing at any time in the relation itself, and all that seems cruel and harsh in reality,
in sundering those ties, and sending forth unprotected
females upon the world, under the disgrace of having
been discarded by their husbands, as having before
lived in a relation offensive to God, rises up as an
obstruction to the spread of the gospel, and these things
have undoubtedly constituted some of the most material difficulties in the attempts which have been made
to convert the heathen to Christianity.  The difficulty
is shown in the clearest manner by Bishop Colenso, who
has had an ample opportunity of observing the effect of
the attempt to inculcate on the minds of the heathen
the doctrine respecting marriage which prevail among
Christian nations, and which have hitherto been regarded as the teaching of the Scriptures on the subject.
" I verily believe," says he, " that, in consequence
mainly of the enforcement of this rule," [requiring men
who are converted to put away their wives,] " our blessed religion already STINKS in the nostrils of the people.
It is not the purity, the charity, the piety which it enjoins-it is not this, which makes the natives shrink,




47
with dislike and distrust, from the very approach of the
missionary.  The heart within them will confess to the
excellency of these things; their spirit will respond to
the Law of God, that it is good, even when the flesh
refuses to obey it. But here the mind of the savagethe best instincts of his nature-his regard for the
sanctity of marriage,-for the peace and welfare of his
family-take part with his ignorance and evil passions
in repelling the advances of the missionary."
On every account it is desirable that every obstruction to the spread of the Gospel among the heathen
should be removed; that "the word of the Lord may
have free course" among them; and the difficulties which
have hitherto been experienced on this point would be
effectually removed by the views entertained by the
Lord Bishop of Natal.
In like manner, very serious obstructions to the progress of the Gospel would be removed by the prevalence
of the views entertained by the "Pastor of the Presbyterian Church, Huntsville, Alabama."  No one can be
ignorant of the fact that the views which have been
entertained by the majority of Christians on the subject
of slavery, have constituted a very serious obstruction
to the propagation of the Gospel.' There was so much in
slavery, in ancient times, that as we have seen, was found
to be conducive to the formation of the best state of society; there is so much that tends directly to elevate the
master, and ultimately to elevate the slave; there is so
much that is adapted to diffuse a lofty and chivalrous
spirit where it prevails; there is so much comfort imparted by the system in domestic arrangements; there
is so much in the fact that it has prevailed in the best




48
portions and periods of the world-under the patriarchs
-in the Hebrew commonwealth-in Athens, giving to
the Athenians the superiority which they had over other
people-in Rome, contributing so greatly to its strength,
its wealth, and its grandeur-that the views commonly
entertained in regard to the teachings of the Bible on
the subject have always presented a serious obstacle
to the reception of the Gospel. Besides this, slavery
is established by law; it is upheld by the authority
of the state; it is incorporated into the very structure of
social life, and it is desirable, if it can be done without
sacrificing principle, that the Gospel should not come in
collision with the laws or the settled domestic institutions of any people. And still farther, the institution
of slavery is one that appertains solely to the people
where it prevails, and is to be regulated by them, as
shall be found most conducive to their comfort and
prosperity, and the Gospel should not be made suddenly
and ruthlessly to infringe on any such domestic arrangements of a people. If crime prevails; if there are certain social habits which are manifestly at variance with
the law of God, then the friend of Christianity has no
option; but in a case like that of slavery, it is undoubtedly a great hindrance.to the spread of the Gospel that
so large a portion of Christians have regarded that as a
crime, and have been disposed to class it with acknowledged sins, rather than with the relations of husband
and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward. Beyond a doubt, not a few Southern masters have been
deterred from embracing Christianity from the prevailing impression-an impression caused in a considerable
degree in former times by the preaching of the Gospel




49
as it was then understood as being adverse in its spirit
to slavery-that if they did embrace Christianity, their
views on this subject must be materially modified, and
from the apprehension that their consciences might be
troubled with the feeling that in continuing this relation
they would be violating the plain principles of their
religion.
It is clear, therefore, that the views of Dr. Ross would
remove one of the most serious obstructions which have
hitherto been encountered in our land to the propagation of the Gospel. Thousands of Southern Christian
masters, relieved of apprehensions which they cherished
on this subject, from the fear that they were in reality
in their practice in conflict with the Bible, will love
their religion more, and be better assured that they are
walking in accordance with the "principles of the Bible;
and thousands of Southern masters, who, on account of
the views usually entertained on the subject, have stood
aloof from the Church, it is to be hoped will now find
the difficulties in the system of Christianity silently
melt away, and cheerfully embrace a system of religion
no longer regarded as hostile to the best interests of
society-to the good of the master and the slave. Revivals of religion have, in fact, recently abounded much
in the Southern States; and in proportion as these views
extend, it may be hoped that there will be a more general attention to religion alike among masters and slaves.
Nothing can be better fitted to secure this than a prevailing idea that religion smiles alike on the master and
the slave in this relation-tending indeed to remove
incidental evils which have sprung up, as they may in
all the relations of life, but confirming the doctrine that
5




50
"slavery is of God, and is to continue for the good of
the slave, the good of the master, the good of the whole
American family, until another and a better destiny
shall be unfolded."  (Dr. Ross, p. 5.) In proportion,
therefore, as these views shall prevail among those engaged in propagating the Gospel in Christian and heathen lands, it may be hoped that much of the prejudice
now existing against the Gospel will die away; that
many of the obstructions which now impede its progress will be removed; that the minds of polygamists
among the heathen, and of slaveholders in our own
country, will be inclined to embrace a system that looks
mildly on existing relations of society, and that they will
welcome a system which, while it would remove the incidental evils of any existing relations in life, will look
benignantly on institutions that have been found to conduce to domestic happiness, and that tend ultimately to
the elevation of any part of the human race.
Second. It may be hoped that important results will
follow from the prevalence of these views in regard to
infidelity.
It cannot be denied that the views which have been
entertained heretofore, on the subjects now referred to,
have had a material influence in keeping up infidelity
in the world; in leading men to the conclusion that a
book which inculcates those views could not be from
God. It was natural that men who held slaves, and
who regarded the system as one that was in accordance
with the best interests of society, should turn from a
book that was supposed to teach that that relation is sinful, and from a religion which required masters to emancipate those whom they held to service. In proportion,




51
also, as the views now beginning to prevail in regard to
slavery in the places where it exists-that it is an institution connected with the best interests of society,
and tending to the elevation of the African race, shall be
extended, the tendency must be more and more to reject
a book claiming to be a revelation, which is commonly
understood to teach that the relation is itself sinful. It
would be impossible, should such views prevail, to secure
a general reception of such a book; and in order to
secure the general reception of the Bible as a revelation,
it was absolutely necessary to show that the Bible does
not thus condemn slavery.   The tendency to a rejection
of the Bible, could be checked only by a revolution in
public sentiment in regard to its actual teaching on
the subject of slavery.  This change in public sentiment, and this influence of the new views in regard to
the doctrines of the Bible on the subject, are thus happily stated by Dr. Ross:
"Twenty-five years ago the religious mind of the South was
leavened by wrong Northern training, on the great point of the
right and wrong of slavery. Meanwhile, powerful intellects in
the South, following the mere light of a healthy good sense, guided by the common grace of God, reached the very truth of this
great matter,-namely, that the relation of the master and slave
is not sin; and that, notwithstanding its admitted evils, it is a
connection between the highest and the lowest races of man, revealing influences which may be, and will be, most benevolent for
the ultimate good of the master and the slave,-conservative on
the Union, by preserving the South from all forms of Northern
fanaticism, and thereby being a great balance-wheel in the working of the tremendous machinery of our experiment of self-government. This seen result of slavery was found to be in absolute
harmony with the word of God. These men, then, of highest
grade of thought, who had turned in scorn from Northern no



52
tions, now see, in the Bible, that these notions are false and silly.
They now read the Bible, never examined before, with growing respect. God is honored, and his glory will be more and more in
their salvation."-pp. 36, 37.
The happy effects of this change of views is also seen
in the religious literature which is to be circulated mainly at the South.   This effect is also thus stated by Dr.
Ross:
"Uncle Tom's Cabin could not have been written twenty-five
years ago.  Dr. Nehemiah Adams's' South-Side View,' could
not have been written twenty-five years ago. Nor Dr. Nathan
Lord's'Letter of Inquiry.' Nor Miss Murray's book. Nor' Cotton
is King.' Nor Bledsoe's'Liberty and Slavery.' These books,
written in the midst of this agitation, are all of high, some the
highest, reach of talent and noblest piety; all give, with increasing confidence, the present Southern Bible reading on Slavery.
God is honored in his word. The re-action, when the first abolition-movement commenced, has been succeeded by the sober second thought of the South. The sun, stayed, is again travelling
in the greatness of his strength, and will shine brighter and
brighter to the perfect day."-p. 38.
From the similarity of the two subjects, as they have
been illustrated in these Remarks, it is manifest that a
corresponding effect must follow from the prevalence of
just views of polygamy. It will ever be found to be
difficult, if not impossible, to persuade the heathen that
a book which regards polygamy as a sin, can be from
God. The difficulty in this respect would be quite as
great as that which arises from the institution of slavery;
and it is as little to be expected that the heathen mind
will be convinced that such a book is a revelation from
heaven, as it is to expect that the minds of Southern




53
masters could be generally convinced that a book condemning slavery as sin can have a divine origin. It is,
therefore, in reference to the general reception of the
Bible as a book of divine revelation, most timely, that
Dr. Ross and Bishop Colenso, on the opposite sides of the
globe, should have been moved simultaneously to maintain views which will tend so directly to check the tendency to infidelity in the two hemispheres, and to prepare
the minds of men for the reception of the Bible as containing a revelation from heaven.
Third. These views in regard to polygamy and slavery
must contribute much to the permanent benefit of the
African race. It is remarkable that the arguments of
Dr. Ross and of Bishop Colenso, both have direct reference to that race, and are designed to promote its welfalre:-the arguments of Bishop Colenso pertaining to
the race in Africa, and those of Dr. Ross to the race in
this country. It has been a much injured race. No
portion of the human family has been subjected to so
many wrongs. Africa, from the earliest time, has been
the land of oppression, and the dwellers in other continents stem all to have combined against it. Cruelty
and crime have prevailed in that land, and when its inhabitants have been removed to other lands, it seems
only to have been that they might endure deeper wrong.
It is remarkable, also, that all the schemes of benevolence hitherto suggested for Africa have failed. The
plans of the American Colonization Society were undoubtedly originated in a sincere desire to promote the
welfare of the African race; but Professor Adger, of
the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Columbia,
South Carolina, has demonstrated that the plans of that
5*




54
Society are utter failures,* and that nothing can now
be hoped from   it either in promoting the welfare of
Africa, or in relieving the evils of slavery in this country. The emancipation of the slaves in the British West
Indies in 1833, was hailed with joy by the world as a
new era in the progress of humanity, but it has been
demonstrated that that was a scheme of bad policy and
mistaken philanthropy, and that the effect has been to
ruin the islands where the acts of emancipation occurred. Then Dr. Ross says:
"God has a great deal to do before he is ready for emancipation. He tells us so by this arrest put upon that tendency to
emancipation years ago. For He put it into the hearts of abolitionists to make the arrest. And He stopped the Southern movement all the more perfectly by permitting Great Britain to emancipate Jamaica, and letting that cxperiment prove, as it has, a
perfect failure and a terrible warning. JAMAICA IS DESTROYED.t And now, whatever be done for its:negroes must be
done with the full admission that what has been attempted was
in violation of the duty Britain owed to those negroes."-p. 72.
The only remedy for these admitted evils and failures
is slavery:-slavery under the protection of thblaws of
a Christian land; slavery in the hands of mild Christian
masters; slavery in such circumstances that the African
can be trained for freedom; slavery with no purpose of
immediate emancipation, with no definite arrangements
for emancipation, with no time fixed for emancipation,
where the whole subject of the future liberty of the
slave shall be left to the development of things, and the
indications of the divine will;-to arrangements above
and beyond the wisdom of men. Thus Dr. Ross says:
* Southern Quarterly Review for April, 1857.
t The capitals are Dr. Ross'.




55
"Let us, then, North and South, bring our minds to comprebend two ideas, and submit to their irresistible power. Let the
Northern philanthropist learn from the Bible that the relation of
master and slave is not sin per se. Let him learn that God nowhere says it is sin. Let him learn that sin is the transgression
of the law; and where there is no law, there is no sin; and that
the golden rule may exist in the relations of slavery. Let him
learn that slavery is simply an evil in certain circumstances. Let
him learn that equality is only the highest form of social life;
that subjection to authority, even slavery, may, in given conditions,
be, for a time BETTER TIAN FREEDOM3 TO TItE SLAVE OF ANY COMPLEXION. Let him learn, that slavery, like all evils, has its correspI)oding and greater good; that the Southern slave, though degraded compared with his master, is elevated and ennobled compared with his brethren in Africa. Let the Northern man learn these
things, and be wise to cultivate the spirit that will harmonize
with his brethren of the South, who are lovers of liberty as truly
as himself. And let the Southern Christian-nay, the Southern
main of every grade-believe that slavery, although not a sin, is
a degraded condition,-the evil, the curse on the South,-yet, having blessings in its time to the South and to the Union. Let him
know that slavery is to pass away, in the fulness of Providence.
Let the South believe this, and prepare to obey the hand that
moves their destiny."-pp. 28, 29, 30.
It seems that it is a great law, in order to the elevation
of any portion of the human race which is sunken and
degraded, that it should be brought in contact with a superior and more elevated race.    Man never rises himself from a state of low degradation, ignorance, and
abasement.   The arts of civilized life, and the blessings
of religion must be carried to the debased and the degraded on their own soil, or they who are debased and
degraded must be brought from their own land, and
placed in close contact with those who are more elevated. Thus it has been in the spread of the arts of civil



56
ized life in all the past periods of the world, and it is
on this principle that the Christian church is now'engaged in the laborious effort of carrying the gospel to the
benighted tribes of men. But it has been demonstrated
that, unlike other people, the best way for elevating the
African race, is to place them in that very close connection which is implied in the idea of servitude with a
superior race, and eminently with the Anglo-Saxon.
The Africans are, as they are found in their own land,
like children.  They are simple; harmless; teachable,
and capable of being elevated, but it must be as dependents-as menials-as slaves-as children not yet qualified to guide themselves.  They want a long course
of discipline, teaching, government, before they will
be qualified to govern themselves. They need the
exercise of a mild and paternal authority over them administered by those of a superior race,, who can thus
qualify them for the important position which they may
yet occupy in the world. The best mode of training
such minds is that indicated by slavery-where they
shall be under others; where they shall be in a school
of discipline; where the lash shall enforce the lessons of
moral admonition, and carry the instructions of wisdom
to the heart; where the waywardness of an untutored
and savage, though teachable nature, shall be subdued by
hard and incessant toil, and where the restraints connected with the idea that they can never hold property so as
to ruin themselves by self-indulgence shall lead their
thoughts to higher interests, and teach them to aspire
after the blessings which they see in other hands.
Hence it is, that since the introduction of slavery
into our own land, though it cannot be denied that it has




57
been attended with many evils and hardships, the race
has been gradually and slowly, but certainly -rising,
till they have now reached a position in which in intelligence, in morals, in industrious habits, in grace of manners, and in religion, they are immeasurably in advance
of the native Africans. The native African has never
risen on his own soil to the elevation now occupied in
these respects by the slaves in the United States, and
the influence of the relation, therefore, on their gentle
and tractable minds, has been of the happiest and most
desirable character. Thus Dr. Ross says of the Southern master:
"  is obligation is high, and great, and glorious. It is the same
obligation, in kind, he is under to his wife and children, and in
some respects immensely higher, by reason of the number and
the tremendous interests involved for time and eternity in connection with this great country, Africa, and the world. Yes, sir, I
know, whether Southern masters fully know it or not, that they
hold from God, individually and collectively, the highest and the
noblest responsibility ever given by Him to individual private meen
on all the face of the earth. For God has intrusted to them to
train millions of the most degraded in form and intellect, but, at
the saine time, the most gentle, the most amiable, the most affectionate, the most imitative, the most susceptible of social and religious
love, of all the races of mankind,-to train them, and to give them
civilization, and the light and the life of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
And I thank God he has given this great work to that type of the
noble family of Japheth best qualified to do it,-to the Cavalier
stock,-the gentleman and the lady of England and France, born
to command, and softened and refined under our Southern sky."
-pp. 67, 68.
So also Mr. Calhoun:
" It may, indeed, safely be asserted, that there is no example
in history in which a savage people, such as their ancestors were




58
when brought to this country, have ever advanced in the same
period so rapidly in numbers and improvement."*
It is through this contact with minds of a higher
order, and of those more advanced in civilization, and
by this only, that we can hope that the African race will
ever be elevated.
The only question of practical difficulty is, whether
this can best be done in this country or in Africa itself;
whether by removing a portion of the African race to a
Christian land, that they may there receive the benefits
of the system that is to raise and elevate them, or whether this great experiment would not be likely to be
crowned with better success ultimately, and be attended
by fewer incidental evils, if it were to be made in their
native land, and on the native soil of the African race;
whether, instead of bringing the African to this land
and making him a slave for the sake of civilization and
ultimate elevation, it would not be better that those to
whom the work of elevating the race seems to be entrusted should make Africa itself the field of the great
experiment; whether, in one word, it would not be better for a number of Southern masters-a number sufficiently large to secure success to the experiment, but
not so great as to withdraw the influence necessary to
civilize and Christianize those already here-to go to
Africa and establish slavery there in a better form than
that in which it now prevails, and diffuse there the
blessings of the system as developed here. In the
nature of the case, there seems to be no reason why a
system which has done so much for the African race in
* Works, vol. v. p. 204.




this country, should not be attended with equal benefit
there; why that which has transformed the ignorant,
the degraded, and the barbarous —which has made
the heathen negro an industrious and faithful servant
and a sincere and humble Christian-which has made
him acquainted with the resources and the arts of civilized life, should not be attended with equal results in
that land. By this plan, also, many of the incidental
evils which have grown out of the great experiment, as
thus far made, would be avoided-evils which it has
been difficult to separate wholly from the experiment.
The expense of importing them to this land; the sufferings, which are often very great, caused by the forcible
separation of the African from what to him is his country; the privations endured in the passage across the
ocean, in what has been called " the horrors of the middle passage;" the separation of husbands and wives,
and parents and children, perhaps unavoidable, in their
removal to this land; and the dangers which now exist
in our own country from the sectional strifes, the embittered feelings, the struggle for power, the fear of insurrection, and the apprehension of a disunion of the States
in this Republic, and which must increase more and
more in proportion as slavery is extended here: all
these evils, which are so often now alluded to as incidental to slavery, and which are so often urged as arguments against the system, would be avoided.
Instead, therefore, of the Colonization Society, which
has proved to be so abortive, and which can never accomplish the object contemplated by its benevolent
founders; instead of attempting to elevate the African
race by the slow and expensive process of removing




them to our shores; instead of further periling our
own liberty, by the sectional controversies, and the
agitations which grow out of the existence of slavery,
and which it will be impossible ever wholly to suppress, let a sufficient number of colonists, composed
of Southern masters, headed by Christian ministers,
transfer the field of the great experiment to Africa
itself. Let Christian men-familiar with the details of
the system, and accustomed to train and direct the imported African by means of slavery, attended with all
the appliances of the Gospel and of civilization-plant
colonies along the coast of Africa, and making their way
into the interior, ultimately diffuse the blessings of
Christian bondage over that entire dark continent.
In the execution of a scheme so benevolent, and that
promises so much for the good of our own country,
it would not be too much to hope that all the people of
this land might become ultimately interested, and that
even the resources and wealth of the National Government-which has, in fact, never shown itself adverse to
any well-conceived plan for extending the blessings of
slavery-might be hoped ultimately to become its patron.
In such a scheme, too, Africa might rejoice in the assurance that she was at length to see the ultimate reasonthe final cause-why she has suffered so much in ages
past; in such a scheme, every philanthropic Southern
master-minister or layman-embracing the views of
Dr. Ross, would have an approving conscience in the
conviction that, amidst meritorious sacrifices and selfdenials, he was promoting the good of his country and
the salvation of Africa.
With a view to such results, these reflections are now




61
submitted to the public. For the promotion of truth;
for the diffusion of just views of the interpretation of
the Bible; for the elevation of the African race, and for
the good of the slaves, it is eminently desirable that the
work of Dr. Ross should receive the widest possible circulation. No book has appeared in our country that is
better adapted to promote just views of slavery, and to
secure the best interests of the African race; and few
works have been published better fitted to guide reflecting minds as to the proper method of conducting missions, than the tract of Bishop Colenso; and it is with
a view of promoting their wider circulation that these
remarks have been penned; that so large a part of the
work of Dr. Ross has been extracted, and that the tract
of the Bishop of Natal is printed entire-that by their
being brought into close connection the true nature of
the arguments in each may be better seen, and both
be so presented that the one. may derive support from
the other.
6








REMARKS
On the Proper Treatment of Cases of Polygamy, as found
already existing in Converts from Heathenism. By JOHN
WILLIAM    COLENSO, D. D., Lord       Bishop   of Natal.
Printed by May & Davis, Church street, Pietermaritzburg,
1855.
Having observed in the Natal journals of late, some articles on the
subject of polygamy, which require, I think, a reply from those who
have given more serious attention to the question than the writers of
the said articles appear generally to have done, I have thought it
proper to set on paper the following observations:
I need scarcely say that as a Christian, and more especially as a
Member and Minister of the Church of England, believing that the
holy estate of Matrimony represents to us in a mystery the " Spiritual
Marriage and Union which exists betwixt Christ and His Church," I
am not likely to have said anything, in my Ten Weeks, or elsewhere,
to invalidate the sanctity of marriage, or to represent the state of
polygamy as in any way desirable or commendable. I believe, of
course, that the practice is at variance with the whole spirit of Christianity, and must eventually be rooted out by it, wherever it comes.
And I believe that it is our duty, as Christian men and Ministers, to
aim at its extirpation among the natives of this land, as speedily as
possible.
But I certainly expressed a doubt, in my published Journal, whether the method, at present adopted by the Missionaries, of requiring
a man, who had more than one wife, to put away all but one before
he could be received to Christian Baptism, was the right way of accomplishing this end. I have since given much closer consideration
to the question, and I have now no hesitation in saying, that I believe
the above-mentioned rule to be unwarranted by Scripture, opposed to
the practice of the Apostles, condemned by common reason, and altogether unjustifiable.
I could wish that the communications hitherto made upon the subject, (with the exception of one by my friend, Dr. Bleek, in the last
Natal Mercury,) had contained less of declamation and more of argu



64
ment. It is most desirable that a question of such grave importance
to the progress of our missionary work among the heathen, and
through that, to the whole colony, should be dispassionately considered. Of course, I most fully believe that those who have expressed
themselves so strongly on the matter, have acted conscientiously, because theyfelt strongly, and thought they were really serving the
interests of religion and morality by the vehement protests they were
making. I have some hope that they will be compelled to'confess
that they have judged hastily and rashly, and have written more
harshly upon the matter than the truth required; and, at all events,
that there is far higher and stronger authority for the view which I
take of this question than they had at all imagined. And, as for my
brethren the Missionaries, who doubtless have acted from the best
and purest motives, in the course they have hitherto pursued, I shall
be thankful to receive any results of their own experience which may
tend either to correct or to confirm more decisively the conviction to
which I have now arrived.
I wish first to consider what guidance the Scriptures afford us on
this matter.
There is, of course, no question that the practice of polygamy was
not only tolerated among the Jews, but even sanctioned by the examples of eminent and pious men among them, and, in one instance,
by the words of a Prophet, uttering a direct message from the Almighty. For, not to mention other cases, that will readily occur to
the reader, we have those of Abraham, "the father of the faithful,"
and David, the "man after God's own heart," who were both polygamists; so that, certainly, it is possible that the practice should coexist with a very high degree of moral excellence and holiness of life.
Again, we have the passage of Deuteronomy, which distinctly recognizes polygamy, as freely permitted among.the Jewish people:
If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne
him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the first-born son be her's that
was hated, then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath,
that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated,
which is, indeed, the first-born.-DEUT. xxi. 15, 16.
And this was addressed to the nation who had received an express
Command from the Mouth of the Living God-" Thou shalt not commit adultery;" and with whom, in fact, the crime of adultery was
punished with death. It is plain, already from this, that the mere
fact of living with more lawful wives than one, does not, in itself,
constitute the crime or sin of adultery.
And, once more, we have the words of the Prophet Nathan to David, in which he speaks of the possession of his predecessor's wives
as an express blessing from the Almighty:
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, " I gave thee thy Master's house, and thy Master's wives into thy bosom."-2 Sam. xii. 8.




65
It is true that in Deut. xvii. 17, the future Kings of Israel are forbidden to " multiply wives to themselves."  But this refers only to
the excessive multiplication of wives; for it is added, in the same
context, " Neither shall he multiply to himself.horses"-"' Neither shall
he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."
We now come to the times of the New Testament. And here it is
necessary to remark, (what is generally unnoticed by those who hastily argue on this subject,) that the Jews, in our Lord's time and after
it, were decided polygamists. Thus Justin Martyr, one of the earliest
apologists of the Christian Church, in his famous dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, speaks (c. 134) of
The foolish and blind teachers of his people, who even until now allow each man
to have as many as four or five wives at a time.
And again (c. 141) he speaks of a man's
Taking to himself, as wives, whom he would, and how he would, and as many as
he would, such as men of your [the Jewish] nation do, who, in every part of the
world, wherever they have come or are sent, take to themselves women, under the
name of matrimony. 
Some of their great Masters, it is true, laid down the law that no
one should marry more thanfour wives; but Maimonides, one of their
most famous Rabbis, [quoted by Jebb, in his Notes on the above passage of Justin Martyr,) says:
It is lawful for a man to marry any number of wives, even a hundred, whether
all together or one after another; nor has the first-married wife any power of hindering this, provided he has the means of supporting them.
The last quotation leads me to speak of the practice of divorce,
which, as is well known, was very common among the Jews; for
when Maimonides speaks of a man marrying a hundred wives, one
after another, he does not mean that he shall, after the death of one
marry another, and so on-but by divorcing one after another. In fact,
the practice of divorce was carried by the Jews to a frightful extent.
"Among them," says Dr. Adam Clarke, "a man might put away
his wife, if she displeased him even in the dressing of his victuals."
And he quotes the cases of Rabbi Akibe and the famous historian
Josephus-of whom the former said:
If any man saw a woman handsomer than his own wife, he might put his wife
away; because it is said in the Law-" If she find not favor in his eyes," &c.
And the latter, who lived in the days of our Lord himself, tells us,
in his autobiography, with great coolness:
About this time I put away my wife, who had borne me three children, not being
pleased with her manners.
It may serve further to illustrate this subject, if I copy the form of
a " Writing of Divorce," among the Jews:
6*




66
I, A. B., &c., with entire consent of mind, and without any compulsion, have divorced, dismissed, and expelled thee, C. D., &c., who wast heretofore my wife; but
now I have dismissed thee so as to be free, and at thine own disposal, to marry
whomsoever thou pleasest, witlout hindrance from any one, from this day forever.
Let this be thy bill of divorce from me, a writing of separation and expulsion, according to the Law of Moses and Israel.
VNow, I say distinctly, it was against this practice of divorce, and not
against that of polygamy, that our blessed Lord's words were directed. I know, indeed, that the spirit of His Divine teaching, is, throughout, indirectly subversive of the practice of polygamy-that the inevitable result of receiving Christianity, into the heart of a people, must
be to abolish it. But though, among those addressed by our Lord,
there must have been men with more than one wife, He never condemns this as sinful and displeasing in God's sight.  It is the putting
away of one wife to marry another-the more usual and economical
way of practicing polygamy-it is this which is condemned by him.
He says nothing whatever on the subject of polygamy itself; though,
indirectly, he teaches the true lesson of married life, when he asks:
Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning, made them male
and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh?
The passages in which our Lord is reported to have spoken on this
subject, are the following:
Matth. v. 31, 32.-It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give
her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away
his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery; and
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery.
The divorce is unlawful; it is no divorce in God's sight; the man
and his wife are still married.
Let it be remembered that these words were spoken among a people who actually practiced polygamy, and had it expressly allowed
among them by a Divine law; and it will be obvious what a momentous
question it raises for Missionaries in their dealings with Kafir converts. Does not a Kafir man, who puts away his wife, except for the
sake of fornication, cause her to commit adultery?  And dare we be
responsible for recommending this act?  I, for one, dare not-no, not
even if the wife were content, upon strong persuasion, to leave her
husband. They are lawfully married. I dare not be concerned in
parting them, or in advising the man to let her go "'free, and at
her own disposal, to marry whomsoever she pleases."
Matt. xix. S.-He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,
suffered you to put away your wives.
I observe that the article copied into some of the Natal papers,
from the Cape Town Commercial Advertiser, argues as if, instead of
the above, it had been said, "Moses, for the hardness of your




67
hearts, sutiered you to have more thanL1 one wvjie; whereas, as we ihave
seen, the practice of polygamy was sanctioned in the case of Abraham and Jacob, long before the time of Moses, and the " hardness of
heart" of the Jewish people.
But from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away, doth commit adultery.
Here we have the words added, " and shall marry another."  But,
evidently, these words do not contain the essence of the sin; it is not
the man,who " marries another" wife, but he who "puts away his
wife and marries another," that is here said to commit adultery.
These words, " and shall marry another," indicate the reason for
which the wife was most commonly put away in those days-viz: in
order that the husband might marry another, but save the expense of
maintaining two wives.
Of course the reader will not suspect me of saying that our blessed
Lord meant to sanction or cpprove of polygamy. I assert only, that
in these words, He does not condemn it. He pronounces no judgment whatever upon it.
Mark x. 11, 12. —Ie saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and
marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if a woman shall put away
her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
We have nearly the same words as the last, but with an additional
clause affecting the woman. By Jewish law, a woman could not put
away her husband. Probably the Roman law was at this time in
force among the Jews.
Luke xii. 18.-Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband,
committeth adultery.
Here, again, the crime of adultery is constituted, on the husband's
side, by the double offence of ptpttinZg away and asrrying aCother. But
he that marries her that is put away, " commits adultery."
These, I believe, are all the passages in our Lord's discourses that
bear at all upon the question.
We come now to the writings of the Apostles; and the first passage which meets us, as applicable to the present question, is that of
St. Paul to the Corinthians:
1 Cor. vii. 12. —If any. brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased
to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
If the state of polygamy was, in any sense, tolerated by the Aposties, when they found it existing in those whom they converted to




68
Christianity, these would seem to be very serious words for those
who command every brother that hath wives more than one, to put
them all away, whether they be believers or not; and though they
may not only be pleased, but thoroughly resolved, from strong and
old attachment, to live and die with him. Let us examine, then, further into the subject.
In 1 Tim. iii. 2, we find it laid down by St. Paul, in his directions
to Timothy for the choice of Ministers for Ordination, that
A Bishop* must be blameless, the husband of one wife.
And again, verse 12Let the Deacons be the husband of one wife.
Now the Roman-Catholic commentators understand these words to
mean, that a Bishop or Deacon should only once be married; and the
Roman-Catholic Church has refined the Apostle's direction into the
rule, that the Clergy should not marry at all; as if there were something unholy and unclean in marriage, which our Lord Himself
" adorned and beautified with His Presence, and first miracle, that he
wrought in Cana of Galilee I"
The Protestant commentators unanimously reject this interpretation. They understand the words to speak of not admitting to Church
Opices any, who had more wzives than one at a time. From this it would
appear that some were admitted to Baptism, who had more wives than one,
and yet were not required to put away all but one, on embracing Christianity. For, if it had been laid down as a distinct and positive rule,
that no polygamzist should be received to Baptism, the direction in the
text would be futile and absurd.
Let the reader mark this well. Polygamy was a state of life-a
permanent condition-not a temporary, occasional condition, in which
the man might be found to-day, but not to-morrow. Thus a man
might be subject to fits of passion, or of drunkenness; but they would
be no bar to his becoming a Christian. Rather, if he were sincere in
his desire to get the better of all this evil, he would be encouraged to
seek the strength of God, by coming to Holy Baptism. Nor, should
he afterwards be overtaken in a fault, and be overcome by his besetting
sin, would he, therefore, be at once excommunicated or expelled from
the Church.
But, if polygamy be pronounced positively sinful in itself, without
regard being had to the state of moral culture and civilization, in
which a man has hitherto been living, it would be a complete bar to
his being received into the Church at all. And the Apostles might
more rationally have written: "Let not a Bishop or a Deacon be
chosen from those, who are haliltual drunkards, or open adulterers,"
because such aight have been found within the pale of the Churchbut a polygamlist, never.
*The word " Bishop," in this passage, and throughout the New Testament, is
used as synonymous with Presbyter or Priest.




69
Whoever, then, admits that these words of St. Paul are intended to
exclude from the Ministry those, who, according to the practice of the
Jews, and almost all Oriental nations, (and he was here writing to
Timothy at Ephesus), were then acitcally living with smore wives than
one, must admit also, that the practice of polygamy, however objectionable, was not yet absolutely forbidden among laymen, for those
who had more than one wife, when first converted.
The sense of this difficulty, and the unwillingness to allow of the
possibility of polygamny having been suffered to exist, even for a season,
in the primitive Church, have led some commentators to explain these
words, as referring solely to the exclusion from the Ministry of those,
who haid pyt away one or more wives, though living now only with
one. And this, in fact, would be the case of many a convert now-adays in this land, if the rule of the Missionaries were enforced-supposing, that is, converts to be gained at all among the wealthier and
higher class of natives.
The following extracts, however, will probably be sufficient to
satisfy the English reader, that this is but a forced explanation of the
passage, and one not approved by some of the ablest interpreters.
And, first, we have Whitby, a Divine of the Church of England:The husband of one wife.-" For the Jews and Greeks," saith Theodoret, " were
wont to be married to two or three wives together." I approve of this interpretation
of some of the ancients, which is also mentioned by Jerome and by Chrysostom,
declaring that the Apostle doth not here oblige the Bishop to be married, but only
corrects the immoderateness of some, and because, among the Jews, it was lawful
both to marry twice, and to have two wives together, and it was more common with
them to divorce one and take another. And, whereas against this interpretation it
is objected, that the Apostle requires also that the widow should be the " wife of one
husband," whereas it was never permitted, among any but barbarians, for women
to have more than one husband at once;-this objection hath some strength against
interpreting this latter passage of polygamy, but none against that interpretation,
which relates to marriage after dismission of the former husband.-Comm. on
1 Tim. iii, 2.
We may next quote the Rev.,John Wesley's remarks, upon the same
place of Scripture:The husband of one wife.-" This neither means that a Bishop must be married,
nor that he may not marry a second wife, which it is just as lawful for him to do as
to marry the first, and may, in some cases, be his bounden duty. But whereas polygamy, and divorce on slight occasions, were common, both among the Jews and
heathens, it teaches us that Ministers, of all others, ought to stand clear of those
sins."
John Wesley, then, admits that the passage refers to polygamy as
well as divorce; and from this the conclusion follows irresistibly, as
I have before shown, that he admits the possibility of persons being
found in the Church who were polygamists, though such must be
excluded from   the Ministry.  It must be confessed, however, that
John Wesley's views on the subject of polygamy were much stronger
than Whitby's.   He here calls the practice a " sin;" and in one of his
letters, thirty years later, he writes:I totally deny that (supposed) matter of fact, that polygamy was allowed among




70
the primitive Christians, or that the converts, who had many wives, were not
required to put any of them away.
Nevertheless, this conclusion appears to me to follow necessarily
from his previous admission.
In the above two instances, the inference I have drawn is only consequential upon the comment of the annotator. But the following
testimonies are of a more direct kind; and proceeding, as they do,
from men of high character for piety and ability, who wrote in the
calm and quiet of their studies, far removed from the scenes and circumstances, which might distract our judgment here upon the spot,
with only the word of God before them, and, as they prayed and
believed, the Spirit of Truth to guide them, they are very impressive
words, in their bearing on the present  nt cnroversy.
The Rev. Thomas Scott, M.A., well known to most readers, as
an eminent Divine of the (so-called) Evangelical School of the Church
of England, in his practical commentary on 1 Tim. iii. 2, writes as
follows:Some have endeavoured to infer a part of that (the Roman-Catholic) system from
this clause, and have supposed that the Apostle meant to prohibit second marriages
to the clergy. But this is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. It is by no
means contained in the meaning of the words, and would certainly bring in a part of
those evils, which long experience has found inseparable from the general prohibition. For as good reasons may often be given for marrying a second wife as for
marrying at all.
With respect to the subject now under consideration, he says.He (a Bishop) ought also to be the " husband of one wife. " Christ and the Apostles
expressly condemned polygamy, as well as divorce, except for adultery.
He refers to the passages in St. Matthew and St. Mark, which I have
already quoted, and have shown, as I believe, that they do not
" expressly condemn," or pronounce any judgment on the question of,
polygamy.
Yet there was no direct command for a man, who had previously taken more
wives than one, to put the others away when he embraced the Gospel; and such a
requisition might, in some instances, have produced very bad consequences in
domestic life, and increased the opposition of the civil powers to the preaching of
Christianity. But the rule that no man, however qualified in other respects, should
be admitted into the pastoral Office, who had more than one wife, or who had put
away one to take another, tended to show the unlawfulness of polygamy and divorces
on frivolous pretences, and their inconsistency with the Christian dispensation;
and concurred, with other things, to bring them into total disuse in the Christian
Church, yet WITHOUT VIOLENCE AND CONFUSION.
No one, who knows anything of Mr. Scott's history, will suppose for
a moment that he was a man, who would either have shrunk himself,
or permitted others under his teaching to shrink, from taking up manfully any " Cross," which the profession of the Gospel properly laid
upon them.   It was because he felt, as I also feel with him, that the
putting away of wives, with whom marriage has been contracted before




71
the reception of the Gospel, is not according to the Mind of God and
the Spirit of Christ's Religion, that he wrote as above.   At the same
time, I heartily concur with the following words of the same Divine,
with which he closes the above-quoted passage:To argue hence, as it has been done, that polygamy was lawful for other Christians, else it would not have been needful to restrict Pastors from it, would prove (if
it proved anything) that it was also lawful and common for them to be drunkards,
covetous, brawlers, or strikers.
It was not lawful for other Christians; it was, no doubt, expressly
forbidden, as I desire it should be, that any, after Christian Baptism,
should commit in any form the offence of polygamy.
I next quote from Dr. James Macknight, an eminent commentator
on the Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles, belonging to the Presbyterian Church of Scotland:
The husband of one wife.-That the Gospel allows women to marry a second time,
is evident from 1 Cor. vii. 9, 39. By parity of reason it allows men to marry a
second time likewise. Wherefore, when it is said here that " a Bishop must be the
husband of one wife," and 1 Tim. v. 9, that the widow, who is employed by the
Church, in teaching the young of her own sex the principles of the Christian Religion, must have been the "wife of one husband," the Apostle could not mean that
persons, who have married a second time, are thereby disqualified for sacred offices.
His meaning, therefore, in these canons, is, that such persons only are to be entrusted
with sacred offices, who, in their married state, have contented themselves with one
wife, and with one husband, at a time. As the Asiatic nations universally practised
polygamy, the Apostle, to bring back mankind to use marriage according to the
primitive institution, which enjoined one man to be united to one woman only at a
time, ordered by inspiration that none should be made Bishops, but those who had
shown themselves temperate, by avoiding polygamy. In like manner, because,
according to Our Lord's determination, persons, who divorced each other unjustly,'were guilty of adultery, when they married themselves to others-also, because such
really had more wives and husbands than one at a time, as was the case with the
woman of Samaria-the Apostle to restrain these licentious practices, which were
common among the Greeks and Romans, as well as among the Jews, ordered that
no widow should be chosen to instruct the younger women, but such as had been the
" wife of one husband" only at a time.
It may be objected, perhaps, that the Gospel ought to have prohibited the people,
as well as the Ministers of Religion, from polygamy and divorce, if these things
were morally evil. As to divorce, the answer is that, by the precept of Christ, all,
both clergy and people, were restrained from unjust divorces. And with respect to
polygamy, being an offence against political prudence rather than against morality,
it had been permitted to the Jews by Moses, Deut. xxi. 15, on account of the hardness
of their hearts, and was generally practised by the Eastern nations, as a matter of
indifference. It was, therefore, to be corrected mildly andl gradually, by example,
rather than by express precept. And, seeing reformsation lmusst begin somewhere, it
was certainly fit to begin with the Ministers of Religion; that, through the influence of their example, the evil might be remedied by disuse, without occasioning
those DOMESTIC TROUBLES AND CAUSELESS DIVORCES, which must necessarily have
ensued, if, by an express injunction of the Apostles, husbands, immediately on their
becoming Christians, had been obliged to put away all their wives except one.
Accordingly, the example of the Clergy, and of such of the brethren as were not
married at their conversion, or who were married only to one woman, supported by
the precepts of the Gospel, had so effectually rooted out polygamy from the Church,
that the Emperor Valentinian, to give countenance to his marrying Justina, during
the life of his wife, Severa, whom he would not divorce, publishes a law, permitting
his subj ects to have two wives at a time.
It will be seen that I do not agree with this Divine, in thinking that




72
polygamy wAas allowed to the Jews by Moses "for the hardness of
their hearts," because I find it already practised by their great forefather Abraham, who was called the "Friend of God."          Nor do I
either agree with him in considering polygamy to be " an offence
against political prudence, rather than against morality." I believe
it to be an offence against morality and Christianity,-a thing to be
deprecated   denounced, and done away; but though an offence, not
necessarily, therefore, a sin in the sight of God, and an offence not to
be got rid of by the summary process (as I consider it) of cruel injustice, and outrage on the highest principles both of morality and religion, which, at present, is usually recommended in such cases.
I will next produce the authority of John Calvin:The husband of one wife.-The only true exposition of these words is that of
Chrysostom, that polygamy is here expressly condemned in a Bishop, which, at that
time, had almost become a law among the Jews. They practised this, partly, from
a perverse imitation of their fathers; for reading that Abraham, Jacob, David, and
the like, were married to many wives at once, they considered that this was allowable for themselves also; and partly, they contracted this corrupt habit from the
neighbouring nations; for among Orientals, marriages were never reverenced with
becoming sanctity and good faith. However this may be, polygamy had become
generally prevalent among them. And so it is not without reason that Paul forbids
this stain from the character of a Bishop. Nor do I condemn the opinion of those,
who think that the Holy Spirit wished here to meet and oppose that diabolical
superstition, which crept on afterwards, as if he had said, "So far from its being
right that Bishops should be compelled to practice celibacy, the state of matrimony
becomes even the most pious"-those, namely, who are to be chosen for ministers. In this way he would be understood not as requiring marriage in them, as a
thing absolutely necessary, but only commending it, as a state by no means unworthy of the dignity of the ministerial office. It is more simple, however, and certain,
to hold, as I have already said, that polygamy is here repelled by St. Paul from the
Episcopal order, because it is a sign of lust and unfaithfulness.
Here, however, it is objected, that, what is vicious in all, ought not to have been
condemned or prohibited in Bishops only. The answer is easy-that license is not,
on this account, given forthwith to others, because this is expressly forbidden in
Bishops. Nor can we have any doubt that Paul condemned generally what was
repugnant with the eternal Law of God. For the decree is fixed and sure-" IThey
two shall be one flesh." But he might, however, have endured int others what, in a
Bishop, would have been too disgraceful and intolerable. For this law is not laid
down for posterity, so that no Bishop, who has one wife, should marty a second or
a third; but Paul repels all from the Episcopal order, who have committed such an
offence. And so, compelled by necessity, he bears with that which, being already
done, could not be corrected-but only in the common laity. FoR WHAT REMEDY
WAS THERE? SHOULD THOSE HAVE PUT AWAY THEIR SECOND AND THIRD WIVES,
WHO HAD ENTEl-ED INTO A STATE OF POLYGAMY UNDER THE JEWISH DISPENSATION?
BUT SUCIH A REPUDIATION WVOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WITHOUT WRONG AND INJUSTICE.
IHe left untouched, therefore, what was not new and entirely in his own power
(quod integrumn non erat,) and only provided that no Bishop should be soiled with
such a stain.
Once more. Peter Martyr, one of the great continental Reformers,
in his Loci Communes, (quoted in the Colonial Church Chronicle for
June, 1854,) puts the questionIf an infidel were in our slay converted to Christ, having two wives, could such
polygamy be endured under the Christian dispensation? And his answer isCertainly, for the time. For they contracted with each other in good faith. Nor
must a wrong be done to the wives, for each of them has a claim upon her husband.
That law, however, which Christ gave, ought to hold for the futsure. But what has
been done, and done with good faith, probably in ignorance, cannot be rescinded.




I have said enough, I trust, to show that those, who think with me
on this matter, are not lightly to be charged with "betraying our
Divine Master, like Judas, with a kiss." And I hope I may now obtain
a calm and unprejudiced hearing, for the arguments from reason and
common sense, with which I would still further maintain the ground
I have taken.
I say, then, with Calvin, that, in compelling a Kafir husband to put
away his wives, we are doing a positive " wrong," perhaps to the man
himself, but certainly to the woman, whom he is compelled to divorce.
We do wrong to the man's own moral principle-his sense of right
and justice-his feelings as a husband and a man. He knows that he
is under a solemn obligation, ratified by the laws and customs of his
people, to those whom he has taken for wives. Hle knows that they
have lived and laboured for him, it may be, for years-have borne him
children —have shared the joys and sorrows of family life. For a
Kafir has a feeling of family and home. It is an outrageous slander
upon the character of these poor natives, to say that they are void of
affection-that their wives are merely their slaves, their children so
many conveniences, for raising money by the labor of the one sex,
and accumulating cattle by the sale of the other. They have their
sense of duty as well as we, in their different relations of parent, husband, brother, child; and if Jacob, though a polygamist, had not.
therefore all his feelings blunted,-(witness his tender passion for
Rachel, and his love for Joseph and Benjamin)-what right have we
to assume that the practice of polygamy has degraded and debased
our own poor Zulus beneath the level of the brute? Let me here tell
a tale of the last flight of refugees, which bears, perhaps, somewhat
on this question.
There came an old man and woman, with their son and daughter.
to the banks of the Tugela; a man of their acquaintance, and two
other women, came also and joined the party. None of them had
strength sufficient to wade through the stream except the son of the
two old people. With his own stout arm and skill, he carried over
safely by night each of the other six. The stream was deep and strong.
the alligators numerous, the terrible Zulu butchers in the rear, who
stabbed some defenceless women of the main body before they reached
the river banks. But God watched over the little company. Twelve
times the young man waded across, and, one after another, father.
mother, sister, and friends, they were all brought safe to shore, and
landed on the British territory. They began to mount the heights
which border the stream, exulting in their deliverance, when the
plaintive howl of a dog was heard from the opposite bank. It was
the young swimmer's own poor hound. It had missed its master, and
could not swim: but he must not leave it behind. In vain were the
entreaties of his family, urging upon him the hazard he would run
from his own state of exhaustion, the alligators in the river, and the
spears of the pursuers upon the farther shore. The young man loved
his dog, and pacified his friends, and once more plunged into the
stream. But ere he had reached halfway, watched from the shore he
left with longing eyes, he uttered a shriek, and, lifting up his arm, he
7




74
was heard to shout, "And must I then perish thus?" An alligator
had seized him, and he was seen no more. The poor mother, in her
frantic grief, reproached her daughter with the loss of her dear son.
"It was she who had persuaded them to make this escape."  The
daughter was so distressed at these words, that she swallowed three
of the poisonous caddis-worms, so commonly hanging upon the trees
in this country, with the intention of destroying herself. But proper
remedies were applied by the natives, who came down to help the
fugitives, and she was ultimately restored.
Who shall tell us, after such a story as this, (for which Mr. Shepstone is my authority), that a Kafir has no share in the common feelings of humanity, and that he is not deeply sensible of the wrong done
to his affections, by the sacrifice which is demanded of him, as the
very test of his acceptance of Christianity? But what a fearful wrong
must be done at the same time, to the sense of justice? It is easy to
say, as some have said, that the Gospel requires the sacrifice of father,
mother, wife, or child, if need be, in the service of Christ. But I
boldly assert, that this is not such a sacrifice as the Gospel requires.
If, indeed, the heathen wife, however dear to his affections, should
refuse to live with him any longer, when he becomes a Christian-if
he knows that his parents and her parents will cast him off, his very
children be taught to hate him, and his name be forgotten among his
kindred, and in his tribe-then, indeed, there would be a true trial of
his faith, and he would have to make his choice between cleaving to
Christ and his nearest and dearest earthly friends. And for this he
would be prepared. There would be nothing abhorrent to the first
principles of justice in this. Nor, if a Christian convert were told
that, being unmarried, he must marry only in the Lord, or being married, he must add no more to the number of his wives, would there
be anything in this to shock or to offend him. His own conscience
would support the dictum of his Teacher.
But the conscience of a man must revolt at first from the present
practice, however fearfully it may become blunted at last, by perpetual reiteration of the law of the Mission Station, and the (supposed)
Will of the Almighty. The man, if he thinks at all, must be utterly
bewildered between the sense of his duty to God, (or rather to the
Teacher, who has become as it were, a God to him, and is framing
anew for him his standard of right and wrong,) and the dictates ot
his own heart and mind, which tell him so truly, that, whatever he
may be willing to do to secure his soul's salvation, he has no right to
sacrifice his wives, their feelings, their marriage-bonds, their rights,
and the rights of their children. For who shall marry them again?
They have already grown old in his service. Their youth and comeliness are gone. They have their children it is true; and with these
are they to be cast forth like Hagar into the desert, to become suppliants for the charity of the first compassionate wayfaring Kafir?
Or is the Christian husband to pension then off, with the help of
Mission Funds, (as I have heard was the case under a certain missionary, no longer in the colony,) and to keep them in his neighborhood,
within the reach of his counsel and assistance, for the management
and training of his children, compelled to live separate from other




75
men, but as wives of his no longer, not even in name? Or is the
husband to take possession of all the children? and is the wife to go,
like her of whom I have written in my journal, to tell the story of her
woe to the missionary,-" You have not only taken my husband from
me, but my child also!" And these things are done in the name of
Christianity? And this is one of the very first notices, which the
heathens are to receive, of the working of that Gospel, which was to
be " glad tidings of great joy to all people?"
I verily believe, that, in consequence mainly of the enforcement of
this rule, our blessed religion already stinks in the nostrils of this people.
It is not the purity, the charity, the piety, which it enjoins-it is not
this, which makes the native shrink, with dislike and distrust, from the
very first approach of a Missionary. The heart within them will confess to the excellency of these things; their spirit will respond to the
Law of God that it is good, even when the flesh refuses to obey it.
But here the mind of the savage-the best instincts of his naturehis regard for the sanctity of marriage, for the peace and welfare of his
family-take part with his ignorance and evil passions in repelling
the advances of the Missionary. As my friend, Dr. Bleek, informs
me, the chief and the tribe, at whose kraal, in company with a memIer of the Church Missionary party, a Catechist, he has been lately
spending three months, received them with open hearts, and entered
readily into the freest converse upon all manner of subjects, religion
among the rest; till, on one unfortunate day, their messenger returned with their weekly supplies from D'Urban, and mentioned what
he had there heard, that one of them was an Umfundisi. Prom that
moment all cordiality was at an end. The Kafirs were civil and
obliging as before. But they now no longer mingled with their
guests in free and friendly converse. Their ears were stopped against
the entrance of the Truth; their hearts were prejudiced against it.
The old chief said that he had lost one of his wives already, who
had became a convert, and left him for a neighboring Missionary
Station, and there lived in entire separation from him, though she
occasionally came with her children to visit him. He wished to lose
no more; and, as he gazed with all a father's pride and affection upon
the children, when they were brought to see him, it was easy enough
to mark that a true human heart was beating in his bosom.
But in this case we have the wife separating from her husband.
Is there any instance known, in the experience of any of our Missionaries, where a man has put away his wives, retaining only one,
and the arrangement has prospered? I am most anxious to gather true
facts to illustrate this matter. And I would repeat again the question, soliciting the kind and serious attention of the Missionaries of
this district to it, " Can they furnish me with any statements of
facts upon this matter —facts to be relied on-facts to be thoroughly
probed and sifted-which will tend to show that the practice hitherto pursued has led to a successful issue in any one single instance 
And can they show none to the contrary?"
It is a curious question too, and one, I imagine, attended with no little difficulty, to ask, on what principle the wives are to be put away?




76
I have heard of Missionaries deciding this matter in each case according to the circumstances; and, in one instance, recommending
the man to choose to retain that wife who was the weakest and least
able to take care of herself! But, I suppose, generally some rule or
other would be laid down for this purpose.
Is, then, the first-married always to be retained, and the others
dismissed, including, most commonly, the chief wife of the kraal?
And supposing the oldest wife has no children, and the second eight
or ten? Or supposing the oldest wife to continue a heathen,. and
the second to become a Christian, yet both to desire to abide with
the husband? What then must be done? Is the heathen wife to be
retained, because she is the only lawfully married one, and the Christian put away?
But the truth is, as I make bold to believe, that there is not an
instance to be produced, in all the experience of the Missionaries of
Natal-American, Wesleyan, or Lutheran-of a man being brought
to profess Christianity, who, before his conversion, was a polygamist
on any large scale, and who has accordingly submitted to the authority of
his teacher, and put away all his wives but one. There may possibly
be a case or two produced of a man with tzwo wives, who may have
been induced, by the urgent representations of the Missionary and severe
denunciations of the Displeasure, to put away one of them; and I venture to say that if the truth were told, there would be, in every such
case, some piteous tale of " wrong," like that of the Kafir woman,
whose words I have above quoted. But has any man with three, four,
or more wives, consented to this practice? In other words, has any
chief man of the district, in his maturer years, become a Christian?
I feel sure that the reply must be in the negative; and I will answer at once the thought, which may perhaps suggest itself-" Have
any of the Pharisees or Chief Priests believed in Him?-by saying
that these are not either Pharisees or Chief Priests, but many of
them simple, honest, manly, true-hearted men, who, with their people, are not unwilling to hear the Gospel message, and to be instructed
in the Truths of Christianity-who already practice many of its precepts, and practiced them in their native kraals, long before they
heard them from us, or, perhaps, saw the contradiction of them in
the habits of demoralized white men. They are men shrewd, intelligent, inquiring; but they dread any closer contact with Christianity, which is to tear up at once their families, rend asunder the
dearest ties which connect them  with one another, and fill their
whole tribe with anarchy and confusion.
Have the Missionaries ever duly considered this-the effect, I
mean, which the reception of the Gospel, on any large scale, among
this people, and the carrying out of their rule, would produce on the
order of the colony, when every kraal and every hut, almost, would
be the scene of some enforced separation, and of the hideous consequences that must follow, where so many married women, released
from the law of their husbands and the strict discipline of their
native customs-with their best feelings outraged, and their passions
inflamed, themselves and their children branded, in their people's
eyes, with a name of dishonor-are turned loose upon their tribes?




77
It is a very different thing to gather a few youths around a Missionary Station, or to pick up a few impoverished adults, and marry the
former decently, and keep the latter in the proper state of single
matrimony, to which, in the first instance, most probably, their own
necessities, and not their own will and choice, consigned them. By
all means let this be done. But what have our Missionaries-good,
and excellent, and devoted men, as we know them to be-what
have they yet done, to make so much as an indent into the huge
mass of heathenism with which the land is filled?  Nothing-comparatively nothing.
Nor do I believe there will be anything done effectively to this
end, until a system is adopted more in accordance with the true spirit of Christianity, and the example of the Apostles themselves. If
I am asked to say plainly what I desire, and, as far as I have any
influence and power, intend, by God's grace to do in this matter, I
say then plainly, not to require the putting away of wives by natives,
married previously to the reception of Christianity. As I have stated before, I dare not do so: I dare not even recommend it to any
man. If the unbelieving wife wishes to depart from her husband,
so be it. But if not, I am bound to tell him that it is his DUTY to
keep her, and to cherish her as his wife, until " death parts them."
Instead of opening Missionary Stations as refuges for the disorderly and discontented, it is my intention to send Missionaries direct
to the heathen kraals, first to acquire the language and become
familiar with the habits of the people, and then to settle permanently, and live and labor in the midst of them. Of course, we
shall require a central Station, where different operations may be carried on, such as are detailed in my Journal; where a native village
may by degrees be formed of a higher class, from among the most promising and willing converts in different parts of the country; and where
superior schools may be conducted, with a view of training native
teachers. But I am persuaded that the main work of converting the
natives is to be attempted, and by God's help and blessing accomplished, only by establishing schools and schoolmasters in direct connection with the native villages-some five or six, or perhaps ten. of
which may be placed under the supervision of each Missionary Clergyman. And the first step I would take towards introducing such
schools and securing the favor of the chiefs towards them, would be
to assure them most positively that we do not intend to interfere with
their married life, as already constituted-that we do not think it
necessary, nor in accordance with God's Will and the demands of our
holy religion, to require them to signalize their acceptance of Christianity by a direct act of perfidy and wrong.
At the same time, I, for one, shall sincerely rejoice, if the Government comes to the aid of Religion in this matter; and, by fixing a
heavy fine upon a second and every additional marriage, makes it
economically undesirable for the natives to contract them. And, in
fact, some change in the present native tax-system seems to be required. The hut-tax, when first introduced, was, doubtless, the very
best that could have been devised, for bringing the Kafirs easily under
7*




78
the operations of Government. The huts could be readily counted,
and the tax duly enforced. By this time the people have learned, in
some measure, to appreciate the meaning of taxation. They growl?
indeed, now and then, at the taxes; but this, perhaps, is only a mark
of progress- a sign that they are approaching towards the character
of a thorough home-bred Englishman.
Upon the whole I believe it to be true, that the natives are quite
satisfied as to the right of Government to lay taxes on them, in return
for the protection they receive, and are as willing as we could expect
them to be, to pay them. But, all this time, the peculiar nature of
this tax has been tending to work a great evil among them, which is
already a serious one, and is every year becoming worse. The tax,
being a hut-tax, not a head-tax, has naturally led to their crowding
as many people as they can into one hut; and the consequences, both
as regards health and morality, are likely to be very injurious, if this
practice be any longer continued. Would it not be possible now,
when every kraal is known and registered, and the Kafirs are become
used to taxation, to the visits of tax-gatherers, and the interference of
the Government in their village affairs, to change the tax of 7s. per
hut into one of 2s. per head, and for this purpose to require the registration of the whole people? Then how easy would it be to give a
death-blow to the practice of polygamy, by exacting a payment (say)
of~10 for each marriage after the first, and laying an additional tax
(say of 10s. or L1) on the hut of each additional wife? Such a law,
however, should on no account be retrospective in its bearing.
I believe that such a measure, with the efforts of Christian Teachers, stationed amidst the heathen kraals in the different parts of the
land, would by the grace of God, avail abundantly-and that, at no
distant time-to the putting down of the practice of polygamy, and
so assist towards the deliverance of this people from the powers of
Satan into the Kingdom of our Lord. I know of course, that in the
case of adult Kafirs, thoroughly seasoned in the habits of their nation,
it were idle to expect that perfect and entire change of character and
practice, which some seem to require in them. I do not look for this,
nor desire to pour all at once, into these old bottles, the new wine of
highly refined European Christianity, purified during the lapse of ages
of deep thought, of ceaseless agitation, of holy deeds, and lessons, and
prayers. But I do humbly trust, that by the blessing of Almighty
God upon our labors, we may be enabled to be instruments of great
good in His hand towards this people; and not to these only-but to
the wretched refugees, who flock to this Christian land for shelter
from the spear of their destroyer, and to the multitude of dark souls
beyond them.
And here I might close, but for the astonishing fact that, in this our
day, in this our present state of Christian feeling, a public journalist
can be found to indite, and set forward in print the proposal, that
" the refugees should be given up!" Yes, fellow-Englishmen! we are
to sacrifice the honor of our great Name, and the glory of making
English soil, wherever it can be found, the place of freedom for the




79
slave, the home for the sorrowful and the oppressed!        Yes, fellow
Christians! we are to drive back into the hands of their tyrant the
poor wretches whom God brings to our feet in the hour of utter distress, bidding us, by the plain Voice of His Providence, to raise them
from their misery, that they may share with us the hopes and privileges of British subjects and of Christian men! 0 shame on the unmanly thought! Let it never be said again that English Christians,
the Christians of Natal, could so much as hear the thing named, without a feeling of revulsion and abhorrence. Once, indeed, it was true
of the white inhabitants of Natal, that they acted the part of calculating, selfish cowards, instead of brave, Christian men; and made a
treaty with Dingaan to give up all future refugees. And they actually did send back six wretched fugitives into the hands of the tyrant,
though with the certainty, as Capt. Gardiner tells us, " that they
would be knocked on the head with knob-kirries and be impaled."*
* See the whole details narrated, with astonishing simplicity, by Captain Gardiner himself, in his Travels, pp. 145-186. The refugees consisted of six persons, a
female chieftain, a male and female servant, and three girls, children of the latter,
The adults had been surrendered first, and were taken back by Capt. Gardiner himself, who interceded for them in vain: they were doomed to be " starved to death;"
but after a few days were knocked upon the head. The King, however, required the
children also, and Capt. Gardiner returned to secure them. I quote the last portion
of his narrative.
"It appears that the apprehension of the remainder of Nonha's party had occasioned much trouble, the whole of the whites and about sixty of the natives having
been obliged to proceed in a body to enforce the requisition. The people of the village where they had been staying, rescued them from two Englishmen and a Hottentot, who had taken them in their absence; they wavlaid them, and issuing from
the woods as they passed, contrived while in conversation, but without using force,
to effect their purpose. On this the large party before mentioned proceeded to the
spot, but the natives, alarmed at their numbers, fled to a neighboring hill. Thus
posted, Mr. Cane, with two natives, volunteered to communicate with them. He
went up in a firm manner and remonstrated with them. at the same time assuring
them that, unless the persons in question were delivered up by sunset, he would instantly shoot the Numzana to whom he addressed himself. Happily, no further
effort was made, and the three girls were secured. But here another heart-rending
scene took place Umfazaguatu (the Numzana) was related to the children, and
evinced feelings of which humanity might boast. Suddenly casting away his assegais, he threw himself upon the ground in a supplicating posture, and only implored that he might be bound and sent to Dingaan in lieu of the prisoners. This,
of course, could not be permitted, though all must doubtless have felt the painful
necessity of acting with so much apparent rigor On my arrival, I found them in
one of my huts, in charge of two men who had been sent for the purpose from Congella. On their leaving this morning, I sent on my own responsibility the following message to Dingaan, well knowing that it would express the sentiments of every
European at Port Natal: —" If deserters must be killed, let them be killed at once;
but, if they are to be starved to death, we are resolved that not another individual
shall be sent back." The men promised to be kind to the prisoners by the way, and
on no account to mention the fate which would probably await them on their arrival. My heart sickens at the thought of such barbarities. Still it is a duty we owe
to the two thousand natives now residing here, and who, together with ourselves,
would all some night have probably been immolated, but for the security of the
present treaty."
In spite of these fears, and this strong sense of duty, we see there was a point at
which the voice of conscience would make itself heard upon the side of humanity
But the sophistry of man's heart is great. They might be killed-" knocked upon
the head," that is, "and impaled"-but must not be "starved to death;" or the
settlers would in that case brave resolutely, like men, the tremendous wrath of
Dingaan.




80
Natal, however, was no British colony then; and the whole transaction brought a stain, at the time, in the opinion of his countrymen
at home, upon the character of him who acted the chief part in it,
which only long years of noble effort since, in the service of his Lord,
a life of faith and sufferings, even unto death, endured with a saintly
constancy, have sufficed to overpower in our memories. But are such
deeds as these to be repeated among us, under the sanction of the
Government of Great Britain, and under the same pretext of expediency? Does not the heart of man, woman or child, who reads the
piteous story, revolt in horror and disgust from it? Could we bear
to stand by, as I suppose we are expected to do, and tamely look on
at the repetition of such scenes?
And they would be repeated. Who does not know that, after the
recent flight of refugees from Panda's territory, some of Panda's own
messengers were sent to demand them back? And the following
scene is said to have occurred on the occasion, in the presence of Mr.
Shepstone. Confronted with the chief leader of the refugees, who
was one of Panda's great officers, these messengers urged upon him
his duty to return, his Master's love for him, and the breaking of the
Chief's heart for the loss of so dear a servant. He heard them silently-seated, as usual, upon the ground, and wrapped in the folds of
his blanket. When all had done, having mingled with their arguments the most solemn protestations, in their master's name, of safety for him in life and property, if he would but return, the chief sat
upright, and, throwing back his covering, laid bare his manly breast,
and gave his arms free play for his address. Then, looking at them,
one by one, he said: " I know you all; you are all my companionsmy friends. You are-, and you are-, and you are-, and you are.
And you all know me. You know what my wealth and my power
vas, in the Zulu land: and you see what I am now-a beggar! And
yet you ask me to return-you, who know there is not one of you,
that would not joyfully change places with me. if you could but do
what I have done, and bring your wives and children safe across the
river. But here I am-and here I will remain. You tell me I shall
be safe, if I return: you know I shall be killed. Did you ever know
a man like me go back and live?" They mentioned two or three.
" Yes I they were poor men. But did you ever know a chief who did
so?" They gave the name of one. " Yes! he had been many years
away, and he went back at last of his own free-will. But, you know
my death is doomed. I have made my choice. I will not go back."
Some of these very messengers had wives among the refugees, and
claimed them, and were told to take them, if they could by fair
means. They did try to take them, but were not allowed to use
the extremity of force. Yet for many yards they dragged them,
shrieking and crying, " You may kill us now-here now-but not
there." For hours this struggle continued, all manner of argument
and persuasion being used to induce them to return-but all to no
purpose. Their reply was still the same-"Kill us here, but not
there."
But a most touching incident is connected with one of these very




81
messengers. He knows that he is doomed; his death-warrant is
gone forth. It will be in his case as in that of others, whose death
by Panda's orders was thus described to Mr. Shepstone by one of the
refugees, comparing the mode of execution, pursued by the present
Chief, with the measures of his predecessors, Chaka and Dingaan:'The Chief will send out his messengers; they will come to his
kraal; they will enter his hut; they will eat and drink with him and
his people; and then, when all will be peace and quietness, and they
fear no evil, while his meat is yet in their mouths. they will spring
upon their feet and stab him. His life-blood will reach the door of
his hut, before any one can creep out of it."  This hut-scene will
be transacted so soon as he returns; or, rather, as soon as the waters
of the Tugela are up, and the despot has his people more completely
in his power. And yet the man determined to return. His wives
and his little ones are there. Poor polygamist as he is, he cannot
stay here-here, where he might have stayed in peace and safetyand leave them behind. It will be interesting to know his fate.
But, happily, we have a Government, both here and at home, which
would never hear of such a proposal as that of surrendering the refugees. Indeed, it would be impossible to enforce such surrenders, along
the banks of such a stream as the Tugela, or to recover, from every
kraal within the district, the fugitives who might escape from time to
time, and mingle with their brethren. And were it possible, who
does not see that deep and fearful indeed would be the hatred that
would inevitably be excited in the breasts of our own Kafirs by the
perpetration of such acts of inhumanity upon their own friends and
relatives? No! the thing could not be seriously thought of for one
moment. If it were, assuredly the voice of a British Parliament
would be heard, and all England would cry against it. Doubtless,
judicious measures are required for dealing with this question, and
providing properly for the reception and safe government of these
refugees, And this, of course, we may believe has been under the
consideration of our Government, and will be not the least weighty
of the many weighty matters that will be laid before his Excellency
Sir George Grey, on his arrival.
Meanwhile, thank God, the great laws of our own dear mother-land
are maintained in this colony, so far, at least, as to recognize the
principle that the person of every man who sets his foot on British
soil is safe from the dread of his oppressor. We do not, indeed,
secure to him the property he brings with him. We send back all
the cattle of the refugees to Panda. We leave the greatest chief
among them, to begin his new life, in this land of his choice, a free
man, but a beggar. And this, perhaps, could not be otherwise. It
would be difficult to prove that the cattle he brought with him were
his own, and not the property of his master. And they care not for
this sacrifice. It is life, dear life, they crave for themselves and for
those they love.
But, forsooth, the refugees must be given up, because " no tenderness for them requires us to sacrifice ourselves"-because " our own
safety is the first law!" So said the Priest and Levitc, as they hasted




82
along that "bloody way," and feared that the assassins who had
waylaid the poor traveller, might return to rob and murder themselves. But so thought not the good Samaritan, nor the gracious
Lord, who said to us by His word, and infinitely more by his blessed
example, " Go, thou, and do likewise." Our own safety! And are
we to do this base deed, and dishonor our country's name, in the sight
of all the world, with the craven hope of saving our own pitiful lives,
when, for the honor of that great name, involved in the defence of a
weak but righteous cause, we have seen, as it were, before our very eyes,
a hundred thousand noble Englishmen-noble, many of them in rank
and station, but all in spirit-go cheerfully forth from all they held dear
on earth, and leave their bones upon the bloody Crimean fields! Our
own safety! But can that be secured, if there be a living God, who
judges the world, by such an expedient as this?  Are we not sure
that our safety can only be secured by doing our duty, in the sight of
God and man, and that if we depart from this, the wisest schemes of
human policy will come to nought-will be found but folly in the
end, wanting in something on which the whole hope of success would
depend, and our fancied security turn out to be a miserable delusion?
1 verily believe God's curse would light upon us, and upon our doings in this land, if this were to be one of them.
For, did the Great King send us here. that we should only, or chiefly,
think of securing our own safety? Did He plant the English flag on
this soil merely that we might live at our ease, and get gain of
gold, and barter for beads with the wretched tribes of South Africa? Did He not send us here to do His work-to proclaim His
name of love among this people-to tell them of their Saviour and
Lord, and advance His kingdom among them? Is not this the great
end-the one sole end-for which the British Empire has been reared,
and for which her colonies encircle the globe? Do we not, at least,
as Christians, profess to believe this? If we endeavor to do God's will
with all our hearts, as I trust we shall, I doubt not the blessing of
the Almighty will be with us, and the Prince of Peace himself will
shield us. If we have faith in God we shall be able, in his own
good time, to remove the mountains of difficulty which now seem to
stand between us and our hope. But if not-if we have no such
faith in the power of Christ's name, in the presence of God's Spirit, in
the promise of His help and blessing-then better far were it for
England to give up this goodly portion of God's earth, which she
cannot hold for his glory, to give it up once more into the hands
of the savage, or rather into the hands of those good men and true,
the Christian Missionaries of every kind, who will stake their lives
upon the Word of their Lord, and count it their highest joy to
spend and be spent in His service. Such as these, I doubt not, are
to be found. There are those here now, who have braved already
the dangers of savage life in the wilderness, and who would not forsake this land, which they have seized for Christ, till, by God's grace,
they have subdued it, and " made the wilderness to blossom as the
rose."