12-8-25

Dear Mr. Tidwell,

I must begin by confessing that I was not familiar with you or your beliefs on polygamy until recently, when some controversy arose on social media over the fact that you, already married with children, took a second wife not too long ago and now have a child from her. If this were the extent of the story, I would have considered your situation unusual and thought nothing more of it. However, you then publicly announced that at the beginning of October you submitted a letter to the rector of your local Anglican church—the contents of which you publicly shared—requesting permission for you and your family to attend, which request was denied in a response you have also made public. You expressed consternation over this decision, stating that “it appears the compromised Church of England in the United States no longer recognizes Sola Scriptura nor it’s [sic] own theology on the matter of polygyny. Their response was truly disappointing.”

In your letter, you spoke of your family’s desire to “reconnect with our ancestral roots as well as find a church to call home on Sunday mornings,” possibly indicating that up to this point you have not been much acquainted with Anglicanism. Thus the purpose of this open letter is to illuminate the Protestant tradition (with special attention to Anglicanism) as it pertains to Scripture in general and the issue of polygamy in particular. God willing, it will help you see the weakness of your own position, that you might emerge from it and lead your family into catholic (i.e., universal, not Roman) truth.

The Meaning of Sola Scriptura

To begin with, you say the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) no longer recognizes the principle of sola scriptura. Judging by your personal website—the author bio for which says the “status-quo Church” is “compromised by tradition”—and a tweet where you claim that, in making anti-polygamy arguments, “Protestants quickly deviate from Sola Scriptura and become pseudo-Catholics appealing to Tradition and Precedent,” you seem to take sola scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only legitimate authority for Christian life and doctrine. In fact, your position is better termed solo scriptura, “the idea that people can interpret the Bible without benefit of tradition.”^[1] The problem with this approach to interpreting Scripture is that it provides no way to adjudicate between conflicting interpretations: “One cannot arbitrate the conflict of interpretations simply by offering one more individual’s opinion about what the Bible means.”^[2] This difficulty never arose for the Protestant Reformers because they used the term sola scriptura more expansively to mean that Scripture is the highest authority and the only one that is infallible, not that it is the only authority:

It is not that Scripture is alone in the sense that it is the sole source of theology; rather, Scripture “alone” is the primary or supreme authority in theology. “Scripture alone” excludes rivals such as the teaching office of the church and church tradition when it comes to the role of infallible (magisterial) authority. It does not eliminate other sources and resources of theology altogether.^[3]

This approach to Scripture and tradition is markedly different from the Roman approach to tradition, for whereas sola scriptura rightly understood teaches that tradition, while valuable, is subordinate to Scripture, on Rome’s account, “The Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.’”^[4] In line with the first approach, a number of the Reformers clearly affirm that Scripture, although it is the highest and final authority, is not to be interpreted in a vacuum. To mention just a couple of examples, Calvin writes, “I acknowledge, indeed, that as Scripture, came not by the private will of man, (2 Peter 1:21) it is unbecoming to wrest it to the private sense of any man.”^[5] He continues, “There is none of us who does not willingly submit his lucubrations to the judgment of the Church. Therefore we neither contemn nor impair the authority of the Church; nor do we give loose reins to men to dare what they please.”^[6] In like manner, Luther draws on the example of Bernard of Clairvaux for a sound approach to Scripture and tradition:

He [Bernard] admits that he held the holy fathers in high esteem, but was not by any means an entire convert to their opinions. He assigns the following cause, and draws this comparison, viz., that he would prefer to drink from the fountain at once than from the streamlet. This is the general rule: for when we can reach the spring-head the rivulets are forsaken, except when we make a suitable use of the streams to guide us to their source.^[7]

Luther’s appreciation for tradition was often muted (as above), but on some occasions he was quite vocal in his regard for it, especially on questions where the larger Christian tradition has arrived at a broad consensus: “It is dangerous and dreadful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church, as it has been held unanimously in all the world.”^[8]

Numerous figures in the Anglican tradition have expressed the same view. Indeed, Bishop William Beveridge captures the importance of tradition for biblical interpretation so effectively that it is worthwhile to quote him at length:

Now that the church hath authority in controversies, is a truth which should it not be granted, it would be impossible for any controversies to be ever ended. I know the scripture is the rule of faith, and the supreme judge of all controversies whatsoever, so that there is no controversy of faith ought to be determined but from the scriptures. But I know also, that as all controversies of faith are to be determined by the scripture, so there are no controversies of faith but what are grounded upon the scriptures. What is not grounded upon the scriptures I cannot be bound to believe, and by consequence it cannot be any controversy of faith. Hence it is, that as there is scarce an article of our Christian religion but hath been some time controverted, so there is no controversy that ever arose about it but still both parties have pretended to scripture. As for example, that great controversy betwixt Arius and Athanasius, whether Christ was very God of the same substance with the Father. Arius, he pretended to scripture in that controversy as well as Athanasius: and so for all other controversies, both sides still make as if the scripture was for them. Now in such cases the question is, how the question must be decided, whether the scripture is for the one or for the other side of the controversy. The scripture itself cannot decide the controversy, for the controversy is concerning itself: the parties engaged in the controversy cannot decide it, for either of them thinks his own opinion to be grounded upon scripture. Now how can this question be decided better or otherways, than by the whole church’s exposition of the scripture, which side of the controversy it is for, and which side it is against? That it is lawful for the church thus to expound the scripture is plain; for it is lawful even for every particular person to pass his judgment upon any place of scripture: otherwise the Bereans would not have been commended for searching the scriptures to see whether those things which the apostles preached were so or no, Acts xvii. And if the particular persons which the church consisteth of may give the exposition of the scripture, much more the church itself, that consisteth of those particular persons. And as the exposition that any particular person passeth upon the scripture is binding to that person, so that he is bound to believe and act according to it; so whatsoever exposition of scripture is made by the church in general, it is binding to the church in general.^[9]

Hence, from the testimony of Luther, Calvin, and the early Anglican tradition, we can discern the classical Protestant understanding of sola scriptura, in which the Bible—interpreted with reference to the larger Christian tradition—is the final authority (and the only infallible authority) for Christian doctrine and practice rather than the only authority. Moreover, this understanding of sola scriptura is still upheld today by the Anglican Church in North America. The website for the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON), of which the ACNA is a member, describes GAFCON as “Bible Based,” which is explained in the following words:

As well as the Bible, God has given humans reason and the historical witness of the church to discern matters of faith but Gafcon believe that Scripture is the higher authority. It is the final court of appeal for doctrine because it is His revealed will. All the foundational documents of Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles, The Book of Common Prayer and the Homilies all insist on this supreme authority.^[10]

This relationship between Scripture and tradition, where tradition informs the interpretation of Scripture, is also articulated in the official ACNA Catechism: “Because Holy Scripture was given by God to the Church, it should always be understood in ways that are faithful to its own plain meaning, to its entire teaching, and to the Church’s historic interpretation.”^[11] In short, the ACNA—in keeping with historic Anglicanism—does indeed still recognize the principle of sola scriptura, as it was historically understood by the Protestant Reformers. Tradition is not inimical to sound biblical interpretation, but an aid to it. As I now hope to show you, this is just as true with respect to the question of polygamy as it is for other matters of controversy.

Polygamy in the Christian Tradition

Although you denigrate appeals to tradition as “pseudo-Catholic,” you yourself cite various figures in the Christian tradition to buttress your support for polygamy, such as Augustine, Luther, and others. Before turning to the larger Christian tradition, it is worth noting that whatever these two men wrote in support of polygamy was highly qualified and not a general endorsement of the practice for Christians. In the passage you cite from Augustine, he does say that “the Fathers of the Old Testament…were forbidden by no law” to have “several wives.”^[12] In the same source where these words appear, however, he explains that in his view the practice was appropriate only “at that time,” for “there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was…in order to a more numerous posterity.”^[13] Elsewhere, he makes clear that monogamy is the divine standard for marriage:

That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself, with the intention of marriages taking their beginning therefrom, and of its affording to them a more honourable precedent.^[14]

Augustine then reiterates that “it was at no time lawful for one man to have a plurality of wives, except for the purpose of a greater number of children springing from him.”^[15] As he sees it, such an allowance was once necessary in order to populate the Earth, but the contingency has now passed.^[16] This and other reasons have been suggested as to why, according to many in the Christian tradition, God granted a special dispensation for polygamy (one that does not apply to Christians) to those in the Old Testament who practiced it.^[17] The most common alternative explanation for the polygamous behavior of the Old Testament fathers is that it was a sin from the beginning: “Polygamy, even that which prevailed with the ancient fathers, was always a violation of the laws of marriage. It was not tolerated of old by God in any sense except as his customary toleration of man’s infirmities and ignorances and as a way to turn them to him.”^[18]

Coming to Luther, the excerpt in which he says “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture” is indeed authentic. The original Latin reads “Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis,”^[19] which one scholar translates as follows: “For my part, I confess that I do not see how I can prevent polygamy; there is not in the sacred texts the least word against those who take several wives at one time.”^[20] Immediately after this, however, Luther adds, “Verum tamen apud Christianos id exempli nollem primo introduci, apud quos decet etiam ea intermittere, quae licita sunt, pro vitando scandalo, et pro honestate vitae, quam ubique Paulus exigit,”^[21] which translates to, “However, I would not introduce that example first among Christians, among whom it is proper to cease even those things which are lawful, for the sake of avoiding scandal, and for the honesty of life, which Paul everywhere demands.”^[22] The letter in which these statements appear was written in 1524, relatively early in Luther’s career, but already he is willing to affirm that, irrespective of its lawfulness, polygamy should generally not be practiced by Christians. When Luther advised Prince Philip of Hesse a couple years later, on whether the latter should take a second wife, he was even more emphatic: “It is my faithful warning and counsel that Christians should not take more than one wife, not only because it is scandalous, and no Christian causes scandal but most diligently avoids it, but also because there is no word of God for it that it is pleasing to him by Christians.”^[23] The one exception Luther grants is in “a case of high necessity, such as that the wife was leprous or similarly afflicted,” or perhaps, as in the case of Philip, if there were a pressing need for an heir.

The other figures you cite in defense of polygamy, namely John Milton and Martin Madan (John William Colenso will be addressed later), are not representative of the Anglican tradition as a whole. Consider, for example, two of the English Reformers—Archbishop Thomas Cranmer says of polygamy that it is “expressly and undeniably contrary both to the nature of marriage, which does not make two but one flesh, as well as also to the scriptures, as will be seen from Matthew xix., Mark x., Luke xvi., Romans vii.; 1 Cor. vii.”^[24] Bishop John Hooper cites Matthew 19 as well, to the effect that it “destroyeth plain the sentence of those that defend the conjunction of many wives with one man.”^[25] Yet even if you could point to five or ten more figures of note in support of your position, the views of any single individual (no matter how pious or learned) cannot overthrow the Christian tradition as a whole. We can take the measure of the Protestant Christian tradition in particular—which you count yourself a part of—by consulting not individuals, but the official confessional statements, teaching authorities, and governing documents of major church bodies. Upon doing so, we find that the weight of the tradition falls heavily against polygamy: the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith holds that “marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time,”^[26] with the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith employing the same language on the subject.^[27] The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), the largest conservative Lutheran church body in America, jointly affirms with other, smaller Lutheran bodies (as well as the ACNA) that “the Sacred Scriptures teach that in the beginning the blessed Trinity instituted marriage to be the life-long union of one man and one woman (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6).”^[28] The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), another sizable conservative Lutheran group in America, teaches that “polygamy is a sinful deviation from God’s design that marriage be between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:20-24; Matthew 19:4-6; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6).”^[29] Finally, the ACNA Catechism teaches that marriage is “the exclusive, lifelong, covenantal union of love between one man and one woman.”^[30] The same definition of marriage is also affirmed by the ACNA Constitution and Canons:

The Anglican Church in North America affirms our Lord’s teaching that Holy Matrimony, commonly called a Sacrament (Article 25 and ACNA Catechism 124-125), is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman, binding both to self-giving love and exclusive fidelity. Jesus Christ teaches that God is the author of marriage from the beginning of time. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27; cf. Matthew 19:4-6). God’s design for marriage has always involved one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24).^[31]

Every single one of these church bodies cites Scripture in support of its rejection of polygamy, such that it avails nothing to claim they are “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9). On this score, you say that “God…never prohibited polygyny throughout the Biblical narrative.”^[32] Admittedly, you are not alone in making this claim—as noted above, Luther once wrote that “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.” More recent sources repeat the claim,^[33] and the author of what is perhaps the foremost contemporary argument against polygamy declares without hesitation that “not a single command against real polygamy appears in the Bible.”^[34] But if we consult tradition on this matter—not just any tradition, but the Christian tradition of biblical interpretation—we find that historically (apart from the many other passages typically cited against the practice, e.g., Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, 1 Corinthians 7), many have argued that there is in fact an express prohibition of polygamy to be found in Scripture, in Leviticus 18:18: “Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time” (KJV). On this reading, the Hebrew phrase that is usually translated literally as “a wife to her sister” or “a woman to her sister” really means “one woman to another,” as can be seen where the same Hebrew phrase appears, for example, in Exodus 26:3: “The five curtains shall be coupled together one to another, &c. The literal translation of the Hebrew is this, the five curtains shall be coupled a woman to her sister, and five curtains shall be coupled a woman to her sister.”^[35] Granted, the above interpretation of Lev. 18:18 has not been universally held, but this example serves to illustrate that what is at issue here are conflicting biblical interpretations, and such conflict should prompt you to ask yourself: do you believe you understand the Bible better on this subject than the overwhelming majority of churchmen and scholars in all of Christian history? To be sure, tradition is not infallible, but to repeat Luther’s warning, it is “dangerous and dreadful” to go against it when the tradition is unanimous or nearly so, and the consensus is this: polygamy is either outright sinful or, at the barest minimum, so unwise and imprudent—being highly conducive to behaviors that are unambiguous sins—that it should be avoided as if it were inherently sinful.^[36] In keeping with the assessment that polygamy is either sinful or maximally unwise and conducive to sin, it is also contrary to the secondary natural end for which marriage was instituted (the primary end being children and their welfare):

Polygamy is gravely detrimental to the reciprocal attachment which should be found in marriage. The wife will assuredly not give her whole heart to a husband who offers her but a share in his divided affections. Physical union there may be; but the moral union can never be fully realized. Nor can there be that full community of interests which binds husband and wife together even if the ardour of affection should wane. The wife is naturally concerned with her own children alone. The father does not necessarily hold her children dearer than those of his other wives. Generally, indeed, the man will favour one wife and one family above the others. Hereby the harmony of the family is inevitably wrecked: jealousies, rivalries and discord take the place of family love.^[37]

Now polygamy can exist in societies with some degree of stability and civilization precisely because it is not “altogether incompatible” with marriage’s primary end of “the birth and rearing of children,” and

Inasmuch as it is in conflict not with the primary precepts of nature regarding marriage, but with its secondary ends, it is possible for a society to practise it without recognizing that it is a breach of the moral law. Hence it may be expected to prevail among races whose standard of culture is low. But so long as it prevails, it will serve as an effective barrier shutting them off from the higher and nobler possibilities of life.^[38]

If anything said thus far has convinced you (or even sown seeds of doubt in your heart), you might nevertheless feel irrevocably committed to your current position because the alternative, in your mind, would be to forsake your second wife and any children she bears. This concern falls within the broader issue of pastoral care for polygamists who convert to Christianity, which will be discussed in the next section.

Pastoral Care for Polygamists

After being denied permission to attend your local ACNA parish, you argued that, for the sake of evangelistic sensitivity, Christians should welcome polygamous families into their congregations: “We ought to warmly welcome the former Muslim or Mormon polygamist along with his wives and children into the fold.”^[39] The sentiment is not new, with no less a figure than Leibniz saying as much in private correspondence:

It is a great mistake to imagine that polygamy is absolutely against divine law or natural law; and if not for this dream the Christians would have made much greater progress in the Indies, where they will never succeed except by force or by permitting polygamy, which has been established there for several thousand years; I remain in agreement that monogamy is definitely better and more conformable to good order, but what is the best is not always absolutely necessary.^[40]

One of the more prominent advocates for this approach within the Anglican tradition is Bishop John William Colenso. Although you claim he makes “exceptional arguments in favor of polygamy,”^[41] in reality, he maintains that polygamy 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 [Natal, South Africa], as speedily as possible.”^[42] Thus he argues not in favor of polygamy per se, but in defense of the more modest claim that polygamous converts to Christianity should be allowed to retain their wives and children:

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,^[43] was the right way of accomplishing this end [of eliminating polygamy]. 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.^[44]

It is probable that the 1988 Lambeth Conference had the arguments of Colenso and likeminded others in view when, as you point out, it recommended in Resolution 26 that “a polygamist who responds to the Gospel and wishes to join the Anglican Church may be baptized and confirmed with his believing wives and children,” provided that “the receiving of such a polygamist has the consent of the local Anglican community” and, additionally, that “such a polygamist shall not be compelled to put away any of his wives, on account of the social deprivation they would suffer.” However, you neglected to mention another condition laid out in the resolution, which is that “the polygamist shall promise not to marry again as long as any of his wives at the time of his conversion are alive.” Given that you made a full-throated defense of polygamy as a positive good in the course of requesting permission to attend your local ACNA church, it is apparent that you never would have agreed to make such a promise, thereby precluding your acceptance into the congregation in accordance with these standards. For that matter, resolutions of the Lambeth Conference have never been binding on the Anglican world at large, hence it “recommends” the preceding approach to polygamous converts, such that your local ACNA parish was under no obligation to adhere to it (and all the less so, given that the ACNA has never been part of the “Global Anglican Communion” over which the Church of England, and by extension the Lambeth Conference, exercises authority).

The idea that polygamous converts may retain their wives and children seems to hinge on the notion that polygamy is not inherently sinful. As Colenso puts it, polygamy is “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.”^[45] As we have seen, however, this view of polygamy’s moral status is a minority report—the larger Christian tradition, past and present, has identified it as a sin. In the words of one response to Colenso, “A second wife, contemporaneous with the first, is no wife in God’s sight; nor can all the enactments or customs of nations, savage or civilized, make her anything more than a mistress—a concubine—an adulteress, and the husband an adulterer.”^[46] Therefore, “It again follows, that, not to require a convert to put away his concubines, as a condition of being received into the communion of the Church of Christ, is to make a continual state of adultery no sin.”^[47]

Now it must be made clear that to “put away” requires nothing so extreme as to cast out into the wilderness, as Abraham did with Hagar and Ishmael. To the contrary, repentant polygamists are expected to provide for their former wives and any children they have produced together: “Like the white man who has kept a ‘mistress’ after he is married to one wife, he [the repentant polygamist] is bound to protect the victim of his passions, and her children from suffering and want, and to repair the moral injury he has done to the extent of his ability.”^[48] Indeed, repentant polygamists “ought to do all in their power to promote their [former wives’] highest good; but to live with them all as wives is utterly abhorrent to their religious feelings. And this feeling is the natural product of the full and hearty reception of the Gospel.”^[49] Failing to provide in this way would be a sin in its own right: “To put her [a second wife] away without making arrangements for her support and that of her children would also be wrong; for the husband, by marrying her, has contracted an obligation to her in this area that he cannot offhandedly disavow.”^[50] Let it be understood, then, that requiring a repentant polygamist to divorce his additional wives is not an exercise in wanton cruelty, for he is expected to provide for their material wellbeing. Furthermore, their spiritual wellbeing is also made possible by virtue of no longer inhabiting a polygamous environment, with all of its attendant miseries.

Closing Remarks

It may be that on an initial reading of this letter, you will find none of the arguments against polygamy itself convincing. You have heard them all before, you might say. Even so, my hope is that if you consider at length the more foundational arguments presented here about the true and proper relationship between Scripture and tradition, you will find that your biblical hermeneutic of solo, isolated interpretation is logically untenable. Conflicts of biblical interpretation will inevitably arise, especially on such a contentious subject as this, and when they do, they cannot be resolved by an arbitrary assertion from either of the individuals involved. The collective wisdom of the historic Christian church, in its reading of Scripture through the ages, serves as a guide when these conflicts arise, and in cases such as this, where the witness of the church points overwhelmingly in one direction, humility bids us to listen and mark well. May you take these words to heart and, with God’s help, be moved toward the truth.

Warmly,

James Clark
Book Review Editor, The North American Anglican

Notes

1. Kevin Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority after Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 120. ↑
2. Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority, 121. ↑
3. Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority, 111, italics original. ↑
4. Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican: Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 2012), par. 82, https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM. See also Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority, 118–20. ↑
5. John Calvin, “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, with the Antidote, 1547,” in Selected Works of John Calvin, vol. 3, Tracts, Part 3, ed. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, trans. Henry Beveridge (Albany, OR: AGES Software, 1998), 64. ↑
6. Calvin, “Council of Trent,” 66. ↑
7. Martin Luther’s Authority of Councils and Churches, trans. C. B. Smyth (London: William Edward Painter, 1847), 22–23. ↑
8. Martin Luther, Letter to Albert of Prussia, 1532, quoted in Philip Schaff, The Life and Labours of St. Augustine: A Historical Sketch (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1854), 95, italics original. ↑
9. William Beveridge, Works, vol. VII, On the Thirty-Nine Articles (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1845), 378–79. See also Peter Gunning, The Paschal or Lent Fast (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1845), 18; William Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation (London: George Bell & Sons, 1888), 122–23; and William Payne, The Sixth Note of the Church Examined, viz., Agreement in Doctrine with the Primitive Church, in Anglicanism: The Thought and Practice of the Church of England, ed. Paul Elmer More and Frank Leslie Cross (Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co., 2008), 95. ↑
10. GAFCON Global Anglicans, “About Us,” https://gafcon.org/about/. ↑
11. Anglican Church in North America, To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), Q. 33, p. 34, italics mine. Compare Article 2 of the 2008 Jerusalem Declaration, which can be found at GAFCON Global Anglicans, https://gafcon.org/get-connected/#jerusalem. ↑
12. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, vol. III, St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), “On the Good of Marriage,” ch. 33, 413. ↑
13. Augustin, “On the Good of Marriage,” ch. 17, 406–407. ↑
14. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, vol. V, Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), “On Marriage and Concupiscence,” ch. 10, 267. ↑
15. Augustin, “On Marriage and Concupiscence,” ch. 10, 268. ↑
16. This opinion was adopted by a number of the church fathers. For a general discussion on patristic views of polygamy, see John Witte, Jr., The Western Case for Monogamy Over Polygamy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 73–93. ↑
17. This position was taken up by some of the English Reformers. See, e.g., Hugh Latimer, Works, vol. I, ed. George Elwes Corrie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844), “Seven Sermons preached before King Edward the Sixth, 1549,” Sermon the First, 94, and Gerald Bray, ed., The Books of Homilies: A Critical Edition (Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co., 2015), “An Information for Them Which Take Offence at Certain Places of the Holy Scripture,” 370–72. ↑
18. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, ed. and trans. John D. Eusden (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1968), 318. See also Ezekiel Hopkins, An Exposition of the Ten Commandments, rev. ed. (New York: The American Tract Society, 1846), 363, and H. A. Wilder, A Review of Dr. Colenso’s Remarks on Polygamy, as found existing in Converts from Heathenism (Durban: May & Davis, 1856), 14. ↑
19. Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, vol. II, ed. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1826), 459. ↑
20. M. Audin, History of the Life, Writings, & Doctrines of Luther, vol. II, trans. William B. Turnbull (London: C. Dolman, 1854), 184. ↑
21. De Wette, Luthers Briefe, 459. ↑
22. Translation produced by translatiz.com. Turnbull renders this excerpt as follows: “But there are many things permissible that ought not becomingly to be done: of these is bigamy,” in Audin, Luther, 184. ↑
23. Martin Luther, Letter to Philip of Hesse, 1526, quoted in John Alfred Faulkner, “Luther and the Bigamous Marriage of Philip of Hesse,” The American Journal of Theology 170, no. 2 (April 1913): 207. ↑
24. Thomas Cranmer, Works, vol. II, ed. John Edmund Cox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1846), Letter to Osiander, 27 December 1540, 407. ↑
25. John Hooper, Early Writings, ed. Samuel Carr (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1843), “A Declaration of the Ten Holy Commandments of Almighty God,” 386. ↑
26. “Westminster Confession of Faith,” ch. XXIV, sec. I, https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-confession/#Chapter%20XXIV. See also “Westminster Larger Catechism,” Q. 139, https://thewestminsterstandard.org/westminster-larger-catechism/. ↑
27. “The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith,” ch. 25, par. 1, https://the1689.org/chapters/25/paragraphs/1/. ↑
28. The LCMS, Reporter, “An Affirmation of Marriage,” 30 May 2013, https://reporter.lcms.org/2013/an-affirmation-of-marriage?_gl=1*1hrjdxj*_ga*ODYyMDM3ODQuMTc2MzkyNTIxMg..*_ga_Z0184DBP2L*czE3NjM5MjUyMTIkbzEkZzAkdDE3NjM5MjUyMTIkajYwJGwwJGgw. ↑
29. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, “Questions on Marriage,” https://wels.net/serving-you/wels-topical-qa/marriage-questions/. ↑
30. ACNA, To Be a Christian, Q. 322, p. 104. See also ACNA, To Be a Christian, Q. 146, p. 61. ↑
31. “ACNA Constitution and Canons,” Title II, Canon 7, Section 1, p. 17, https://anglicanchurch.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/ACNA-Constitution-and-Canons-2024.pdf. It should also be noted that more than one Lambeth Conference has addressed the subject. In 1958, the Conference held in Resolution 120 that “monogamy is the divine will, testified by the teaching of Christ himself, and therefore true for every race of men,” https://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1958/resolution-120-the-family-in-contemporary-society-polygamy.aspx. At the 2008 Lambeth Conference, Section H (“Human Sexuality”), par. 114 stated more strongly, “In the case of polygamy, there is a universal standard – it is understood to be a sin,” https://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/2008/section-h-human-sexuality.aspx. ↑
32. Rich Tidwell, “On Plural Marriage,” Rich Tidwell, 5 June 2025, https://richtidwell.com/on-plural-marriage/. ↑
33. See, e.g., Willard Burce, “Polygamy and the Church,” Concordia Theological Monthly 34, no. 4 (April 1963): 223, https://scholar.csl.edu/ctm/vol34/iss1/23/. ↑
34. Witte, Jr., Polygamy, 448. ↑
35. Wilder, Review of Dr. Colenso’s Remarks, 13, italics original. See also William Perkins, Works, vol. 3 (London: 1631), “A Short Survey of the Right Manner of Erecting and Ordering a Family, According to the Scriptures,” 677; Henry Hammond, A Letter of Resolution to Six Quæres (London: 1653), 87; Hopkins, Ten Commandments, 363; and Ames, Marrow of Theology, 318. ↑
36. In this the Protestant tradition stands alongside the Roman Church, which teaches in par. 2387 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that “polygamy is not in accord with the moral law,” https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P87.HTM. ↑
37. George Hayward Joyce, Christian Marriage: An Historical and Doctrinal Study, 2^nd ed. (London: Sheed and Ward, 1948), 19. ↑
38. Joyce, Christian Marriage, 20. ↑
39. Rich Tidwell, “Should Polygamist Families be Welcome at Church?” Rich Tidwell, 11 November 2025, https://richtidwell.com/should-polygamist-families-be-welcome-at-church/. ↑
40. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Letter to Landgrave Ernst, September 2/12, 1691, quoted in Leo Miller, John Milton Among the Polygamophiles (New York: Loewenthal Press, 1974), 108. ↑
41. Tidwell, “Polygamist Families,” https://richtidwell.com/should-polygamist-families-be-welcome-at-church/. ↑
42. John William Colenso, On the Proper Treatment of Cases of Polygamy, as found already existing in Converts from Heathenism (Pietermaritzburg: May & Davis, 1855), in Frederick A. Ross and John William Colenso, The Truth Restored in Regard to Polygamy and Slavery (Philadelphia: Henry B. Ashmead, 1857), 63. ↑
43. Compare Burce, “Polygamy and the Church,” 223. ↑
44. Colenso, Polygamy, 63, italics original. ↑
45. Colenso, Polygamy, 72, italics original. ↑
46. Wilder, Review of Dr. Colenso’s Remarks, 18, italics original. ↑
47. Wilder, Review of Dr. Colenso’s Remarks, 19, italics original. ↑
48. Wilder, Review of Dr. Colenso’s Remarks, 37. ↑
49. Wilder, Review of Dr. Colenso’s Remarks, 40. ↑
50. Burce, “Polygamy and the Church,” 225–26. ↑