Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 72

The Scriptural Foundation

page 13

The Scriptural Foundation.

A generation ago Croly said with reference to the present matter, "All national sufferings date from national vice," [unclear: and]. "The era of national prosperity is the era of reverence for family." Our fathers, with reference to the maintenance of [unclear: ceples], laid great emphasis on the [unclear: ception] of "attainments" (cp. "[unclear: Tartions]," 2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6), While [unclear: ady] to give up everything that shoul[unclear: d] disproved ("Old Scottish" Confessio[unclear: n] preface) "from the mouth of God," they held the principle at present in [unclear: stion] as an attainment which had come [unclear: wn] to them from him (Rev. xxii. 1) in the great stream of His whole Church's [unclear: tive] history and practice from her [unclear: mitive] ages. In such a case it become[unclear: s] "against the whole land" if need b[unclear: e], stand as "a defended city, and an iron [unclear: llar], and brazen walls." And to [unclear: aban] such attainment—a noble heritage [unclear: em] a glorious past—were on our part a [unclear: sse] degeneracy if indeed the principle [unclear: us] be "true and divine. But on that [unclear: aint] we are under a law of "prove all [unclear: ings]." And we now therefore go on to [unclear: sider], "What saith the Scripture?" "What is written in the law? How [unclear: dest] thou?"

That for Christians is the vital poin[unclear: t] viii. 8). And "He sent His word and healed them" is vital for all. If He have spoken for men's guidance in this batter, then so far His word is balm in Gulead. He is the physician there; and all [unclear: man] devices and laws not in accordance with that divine prescription are, as I said, but a foolish wickedness of leaning on a broken reed: as it proved when false [unclear: hets] "healed the wound of the daughter of His people slightly, saying Peace, Peace; when there was no peace."

But between men and the Bible there has risen a great cloud of witnesses, collected opinions of individuals regarding the teaching of Scripture contrary to the generally received Christian view of that teaching. And though the cloud should be destined to prove, on close consideration, only a vapor cloud of nothings, that vanishes in the light of real knowledge and solid reason,—yet in the meantime the people may be perishing for lack of knowledge: since a cloud of nothingness may for a time have some effect as of a cloud of dust, in blinding the eyes of "the simple" so as to "deceive their hearts," disabling them from seeing into God's Word for themselves, as hearing the Good Shepherd's voice. And plain people, who cannot make independent researches into subtleties of theology or obscurities of recondite scholarship, may feel as if it were presumption to "search the Scriptures for themselves where thus "many masters," experts, are beforehand with dictation.

Let it, then, be observed for their comfort, that this popery of supposed experts, or dominie-ocracy of collected scraps of individual opinion, is a tyranny which they can easily prevent or cure. For the present matter is one not properly for experts; but for plain people. It is a plain matter, for (cp 1 Cor. x., 16) the judgment of practical sense, as in a jury case addressing itself to the common reason of mankind. And in especial as for evidence—which in the present case is the essential thing—recent expert researches have not added a particle of any real significance to that which entered into the judgment in which the Christian world has hitherto been resting: while experts have variously shown that, if masters elsewhere they can here be "novices," that, as compared with old true masters of the subject, they can be fatally deficient in practical judgment as to this matter, or, comprehension of the true significance of the evidence and nature of the case.*

* "A volume (entitled "Opinions of the Hebrew and Greek Professors of the. European Universities regarding the Legalisation of Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister; with an Appendix. Marriage Law Reform Association, 21 Parliament Street, S.W., London. Printed by Samuel Goulburn, 1882") has been appealed to as proving that the Scripture argument against the measure is untenable, and has been given up by most competent authorities. These opinions are worthy of careful consideration, and they indicate a change in the prevalent view of scholars on the subject, which would have been a strong presumption in their favor if it were due to an examination of the grounds of the old view, and to these having been found inadequate. But in most of these "Opinions" and other arguments for change of the law, the question has been discussed on such a narrow issue, that what were the leading considerations with older divines and constitutional lawyers do not come into view at all,' (Free Church of Scotland Assembly, 1885: Report of Committee on the Marriage Affinity Bill. (Signed) James Candlish, Convener.)

page 14

Thus, with reference to the New Testament evidence, there is, e.g. a parade of opinions of Greek scholars regarding Eph. v., 31, in answer to a question sent over the world: Is marriage with a deceased wife's sister condemned in this text? But the question is a fallacy if not a sophism. The parade of opinions is a mare's nest hiding a trap for "the simple." The solemn ineptitude of answering is discreditable to professed scholarship. For (1) on our part it is not said nor imagined that Eph. v., 31, is directly a proof-text for our doctrine: we see that the direct reference is to quite a different point: and (2) though the reference in that text had visibly been straight to the present question, Greek scholarship would have nothing to do with settling the meaning of the text: its meaning is just as clear—or obscure—in translation as in the Greek.

Similarly with reference to the Old Testament evidence. There the opponents find their stronghold at Lev. xviii, 18, where their strong point is at the final "in her life time. To this Hebrew scholars are brought flocking as adverse witnesses like doves to the windows or eagles to the carcase. But Hebrew does not serve in place of practical sense. Thus Dr M'Caul, a very learned Hebrew, here put himself out of court by manifested extreme lack of judgment, in absurdly, in a treatise, throwing his whole strength into [unclear: pr] that the rendering of Lev. xviii, [unclear: 18] version is the right one—as if tha[unclear: t] proof that marriage with a decease[unclear: d] sister is permitted in Scripture; [unclear: wh] in fact that rendering is far th[unclear: e] widely., received, in approved [unclear: vea] ancient and modern, among those hold that the said marriage is not committed in Scripture, that is, [unclear: ar] Christians generally. Other [unclear: He] scholars have other ways of shewin[unclear: g] they can speak not "with author[unclear: ity]' "as the Scribes." And plain [unclear: pe] here may take comfort from the [unclear: folle] considerations: 1. That the litt[unclear: le]-very little—that Hebrew scholarship contribute for expiscation of Lev. [unclear: xvi] can easily be learned from Englis[unclear: h] cations within reach of everyone; [unclear: 2.] it is in nowise a new discovery of [unclear: expe] but has been within reach of all [unclear: Heb] readers for, say, 3000 years; and that independently of it, a plain [unclear: ma] sense can judge for himself as to th[unclear: e] lowing:—

Positions relatively to Lev. xviii. [unclear: 18]-A reasonable explanation of it can [unclear: be]

"The title given to the [unclear: colle] of opinions as being 'on the [unclear: tural] aspect of the questi[unclear: on],' avowedly they are only as to [unclear: whe] the Levitical law and a single passa[unclear: ge] [v, 13] in the New Testament [unclear: cond] them, plainly proceeds on the [unclear: assump] that if this marriage is not forbidden these places it is not contrary to Scrip at all: and the fact that of the professed Hebrew who have given answers t[unclear: o] Dalhousie's query 29 found these onl[unclear: y] Lev. xviii, 18, taking no account of an[unclear: y] part of the law or of the grounds on which unlawfulness of the marriage in [unclear: que] is held, shews further that they assume; if it is not forbidden in that verse it [unclear: ca] have been forbidden at all. On the [unclear: na] issues which most of these Opinions [unclear: di] we really do not care to dispute. [unclear: Eva] Scripture did not forbid this marriage there are other reasons against it that is held of great weight. Nor was it [unclear: assa] that if the Levitical law did not forbi[unclear: d] the teaching of Scripture as a whole t[unclear: o] Christians showed it to be lawf[unclear: ul]; further, that the Levitical law allowe[unclear: d] simply because one particular precep[unclear: t] not prohibit it." (Free Assembly [unclear: Cor] tea's Report, p. 2.)

page 15 [unclear: fu]rther on) consistently with the view [unclear: at] the marriage in question is condemne[unclear: d] Scripture as incestuous. (2) Though n[unclear: o] explanation had been producible, tha[unclear: t] us would only make a difficulty of [unclear: obrity] on this text, not affecting the clea[unclear: r] of the condemnation at vers. 6-17 along [unclear: th] other evidence. (3) Meanwhile, the [unclear: native] position, of making the verse [unclear: tain] a permission of the said marriage i[unclear: s], rounds of strict logical interpretation, [unclear: nable], even to the extent of practical [unclear: rdity]e.g., as implying that the verse [unclear: tains] a permission of bigamy with [unclear: aggra] of incest. And, in fine—(4), the verse plains conclusive prohibition of the said marriage.
These positions, abundantly decisive, I [unclear: pose] to make good. But at the [unclear: sent] stage it suffices to look at the[unclear: m], plain man of sense needs only to loo[unclear: k] them in order to see that there is [unclear: thing] in clouds of adverse witnesse[unclear: s] need hinder him from going with [unclear: broubled] mind to the word of the faithful and true witness," and "lea[unclear: rn]-of Him" who "is meek and lowly in [unclear: art"] (Matt, xi., 27-30). But, to make [unclear: rance] doubly sure, so that not eve[unclear: n] shadow of a cloud may linger on his [unclear: d], we will now look a little into the [unclear: racter] of that production of opinions can be seen here on the threshold, [unclear: ard] Chancellor Campbell showed us the [unclear: loriousness] of the commencement o[unclear: f] practical movement in Britain. A [unclear: ter] master of relative history, the late [unclear: cipal] Cunningham of Edinburgh, wil[unclear: l] us in few words the beginning of the [unclear: logical] movement elsewhere:—

There was no difference among the remember of the Continent, or of England, o[unclear: r] Scotland. The beginning of any doub[unclear: t] the subject was from some German [unclear: pces] desiring to marry sisters of their [unclear: res]. In order to get a justification of th[unclear: e] they asked some of the professors a[unclear: t] universities to write in defence of [unclear: it] or three of them did so, and this wa[unclear: s] origin of the discussion.

Here is a curious foreshadowing of the [unclear: lish] ingloriousness of setting out with [unclear: th] lying about the English [unclear: law]:—Two or three professors," with referenc[unclear: e] the law of nature and of God, giving [unclear: selves] over to be special pleaders for the lust (cp. 2 Tim. iv. 4) of "wee, wee [unclear: man] lairdies "; where we perceive a far from gratifying analogy to the process of consulting professors about the matter in our own day. But the discussion may in some cases have risen above that level of its origin,—so strongly contrasted with our doctrine's historical descending from the primitive ages in the heart of all that there may have been of truth and holiness in the Church of Christ. Of late there has been, among really respectable students of Scripture, a sort of "run" against the received Christian view as to the teaching of Scripture about this matter: as not long ago there was among them a run against the authenticity and truth of the New Testament, and now there is among them a run against the Old Testament (Mat. xxi. 44). We, then, will pause for a little in contemplation of that cloud of adverse testimony; in a sample that has been laid before the readers of the (Dunedin) "Christian Outlook," by "J. H. M 'K.," Nelson.

The writer appears to be under pressure of a feeling of need of his bestowing correction and instruction on (Acts iv. 13) "unlearned and ignorant men" (Gr. idiots) in Otago and Southland: so that there is for them "a sweet little cherub that sits up aloft, to watch o'er the life of poor Jack." His utterance has some look of a speech that 12 years ago was addressed to the Otago and Southland Presbyterian Synod, by the mover of a resolution for which at the last not one voted. Between this collapse and the speech there had intervened a representation somewhat in the strain of what here follows:—

Evaporation of a Cloud of Adverse Witnesses.—Has J. H. M 'K. for a moment thought of the purpose, that has to be served by such testimonies,—namely, to outweigh the solemnly deliberate judgment of churches and belief of the Christian world as a whole, regarding an essentially plain matter of God's Word? For that purpose, individual opinions ordinarily are of no weight: not even "change for Marshal Turenne"; since in such a case they are not even little marshals—very small change—but only as eccentric privates. He intimates that many more such opinions could be adduced. But though they should be countless as the sand of the sea shore, they might be valueless for that purpose, as a thousand times nothing is nothing. And if the testimonies held in reserve by page 16 him be of the quality of those now adduced by him, a thousand of them would for his cause be a thousand times worse than nothing; for they would be a thousand proofs that nothing of real weight as historical testimony is producible on that side—a multitudinously manifested failure. Let us look first at those whom he puts foremost,—three "mighties," representing respectively three Christian epochs,—primitive, Reformation, modern.

1. "The first three "—Augustine, Luther, Chalmers,—are in reality against the view on whose behalf they are here adduced. In this connection it is an important fact with reference to everyone of them, that the church of his day, in which he was commandingly influential, held the doctrine against which he here is made a witness. Although, therefore, he had been of a contrary opinion, his opinion would fall to be regarded, not as representing the Christian mind of his epoch, but only as a somewhat unaccountable individual eccentricity. But let us look at the men themselves individually

Augustine* in effect opposes the view for which he here is made a witness. This he does here in the witness-box, in the very words of the testimony produced from him, on Lev. xviii., 18. The view he there gives of this text is, that what is prohibited is, not bigamy—since (he reasons) bigamy was tolerated under the Old Testament—but, bigamy in which the wives are sisters as (he adds) in Jacob's case. That view of Lev. xviii., 18 is conventional among those who believe that the marriage in question is forbidden in Scripture; and Augustine's holding that view only goes to show, that relatively to the marriage he believed with the whole church of his time. In the judgment of charity J. H, M'K. does not in the least understand the fragment of "the doctor of grace" he here produces; as (one would think) he must have understood it if he had any real comprehension of the subject. So, intending murder, he begins with suicide.

Luther was, along with Melancthon, implicated in a scandal about permitting bigamy in one case, which had nothing to do with our present matter. But with reference to this matter he did, early in his career (A.D. 1522) express the opinion for which he now is made a witness by those of J. H. M 'K.'s mind. They omit to mention the fact, often insisted on for their learning that Luther subsequently abandoned that early opinion, and settled into the doctrine of his own German church and of the Christian world in general! Proof of the fact was published more than three centuries ago by Gerhard "the most learned of the heroes of Lutheran orthodoxy, and the best loved on account of personal goodness" (Herzog, Encycl.). In the judgment of charity J. H. M 'K. is ignorant of this fact, so notorious, about his witness. But if the be, has he a moral right to address the public as one who knows what he says and whereof he affirms—yea, who is "a Daniel come to judgment" on "ignorant men."

Chalmersvidi tantum—from the use made of his name, might be supposed to have all his life time been a foremost champion propagandist of permissionism, as in "the Ten Years' Conflict" he led the Evangelicals in defence of the Church's freedom into her disruption from the State. The whole and sole fact is, a passing note of his in a diary, which he may have had no thought of ever publishing. In that diary the note is virtually contradicted in an almost immediately following note, on Lev xx. 19, where he approves the principle set forth in our Confession, xxiv., 4, of equivalence of affinity to consanguinity in this relation. And the very hinge of the note itself is a silliness, of inference from the final "in her life time" (see further on) which presumably would here been impossible on the part of a Chalmers with his vast practical sense—if (in private devotional Bible" reading) he had looked a little below the surface of what he here glances at in passing. But in the present connection the main fact regarding him is, that through all his public life he was a professed and pledged adherent of the doctrine against which he is here is made a witness.§

* "They had evidence that this marriage was forbidden as early as the fourth century, when St. Basil the Great declared that such marriages were forbidden in the Divine law, and had not been heard of in the Christian Church up till that time" (Prof. Dr Candlish, in Scottish Free Church Assembly, 1885.) N.B., that Augustine flourished in the generation immediately after Basil.

In his great work, 'Loci Theologici," vol vii p 374. My copy was pub ished at Geneva (!) two years after his death A.D. 1637.

Posthumously published under the title "Daily Scripture Readings."

§ Cp. Dr A. Cameron's pamphlet on the marriage affinity question on occasion of the discussion of it in the Victoria Presbyterian Assembly, 1873. In that discussion another distinguished pupil and fervid admirer of Chalmers said that hitherto, on the strength of the great man's obiter dictum on Lev. xviii, 18, he had been prejudiced against the Confessional doctrine, but that now, having been placed under necessity of really studying the matter as a judge, he felt constrained by Scripture evidence to maintain at as a doctrine of God's word. Neither of these two witnesses gave any real information about the interesting point, as to an apparent self-contradiction in Chalmers' personal relation to the matter in that private note on Lev. xviii., 18, as compared with, on the other hand, his note on Lev. II, 19 and his whole public career. Nor have I, though exceptionally well placed in respect of access to sources of information, ever seen or heard of any real explanation of the seeming inconsistency. (No one can imagine that in Chalmers' case it could be more than seeming.) The following is suggested only as a side-light of illustration on lev. xviii., 18.

Some hold that, consistently with the view that the marriage in question is condemned in Scripture for mankind generally, Lev. xviii., 18, may be a permission of it to Old Testament Jews, like (Mat. xix., 9) the Mosaic permission of divorce. They point to the fact that ver. 18, on the outer border of the code (vers. 6-17) at its close, is in a transition to things distinctively Jewish which follow; and to the circumstance that this verse itself has the expression for honorable union, "take a wife," which nowhere occurs in the preceding code. The suggestion thus is, that vers. 6-17 record the natural law of incest, and that what ver. 18 records may be a local and temporary so-far suspension of that law—cp. the seventh day of the fourth commandment. That Chalmers reasoned thus, I am not warranted in affirming. But he might thus reason: which shows that, even on the straitest rule of law logic, his note on Lev. xviii., 18 is really irrelevant in the historical question here.

page 17

J.H. M'K,'s implication is that Chalmers is a first-class witness against our doctrine.

The historical fact is that he was a life-long [unclear: fessor] of our doctrine. In course of that life, he several times, with solemnity as of a now to God and man, publicly declared his allegiance to "the whole doctrine" of the Westminster Confession, while he never manifested dissatisfaction with this one of its doctrines, and was far from the baseness that can live on the wages of a Confession while in reality at heart opposed to its teaching. The reasonable presumption from what otherwise is known of his relation to the matter is, that he never carefully studied it; in which case Lev. xviii, 18 might be a crux to him, as it has been to many who nevertheless hold the dectrine of our Confession as really Scriptural.

The misrepresentation of Augustine is "desperately" audacious. It is to be hoped that the original perpetrator of it did not know what he was doing, though he was able somehow to find the passage, and translate it. Otherwise, he must have calculated on ignorant stupidity of readers, to lead them through mare's nest into trap. We do not need to suppose that this colonial reproduction of the shoddy is under influence of such calculation relatively to our antipodean intelligence. J. H. M 'K. may have been entrapped himself. The misrepresentation of Luther, persisted in after exposure so long published, is (to use Lord Chancellor Campbell's expression) "very disgraceful." The use made of Chalmers' name is a good sample case of a story of "Three black crows "—while the delusion has an effect of imposture. Such things in the long run bring their own punishment, of exposure, and damage to the cause which employs them (Prov. xxvi., 27).

2. His remaining witnesses are manifestly of no real weight for the present purpose. None of them has any such greatness as to make his opinion an authority in this relation, of a feather's weight against the judgment of historical Churches and the Christian world. It is true that J. H. M 'K's collection is not nearly so good as it might be. He seems to be dependent on some old miscellany of scraps, now in large measure out of date. Some of the names never were of any significance in such a question as the present; though, being on some other account "in the air," they may have served a partisan purpose as "tubs to amuse the whales," a generation ago among "the (very) simple." But let us look at the testimonies now relied on for the instruction of our "great future nation" of New Zealand.

Dr. Cumming ("apocalyptic") was at one time a good deal heard of as a popular interpreter of unfulfilled prophecy; but who ever heard or thought of him as an authority in a question regarding God's law in Scripture? And in all respects he now is long antiquated as an exploded balloon. The excellent Mr John Bright, great in politics, thus at one time had "a name to conjure with" among those who did not perceive, that as an authority in interpretation of Old Testament Scripture he of course was nothing. page 18 He once declined high political office on the Scriptural plea, "I dwell among mine own people." Is it not a posthumous cruelty, like putting a fool's cap on a memorial statue, here to place him as a pope, dogmatising on Lev. xviii. 18 against Christendom—not, contra mundum, like Athanasius the Great. Even our own G.O.M., campaigning through Midlothian with his head among the stars, was made to feel that man has limitations when he interpreted "the land o' the leal"—making it mean Scotland, whereas it really means the heavenly country (of "the just made perfect"). Mr Gladstone is weighty when he throws his great powers into writing a famous "Essay on the Divorce Bill;" for there he handles the matter on grounds of moral and political reason, where he is a passed master. But to bring in Mr Bright as a great authority in Old Testament interpretation is really farcical, as if a member of the Vatican Council had appealed against it to Mazzini or Kossuth. Max Muller! (Saul among the prophets) is no doubt a great master in his way: but surely not in this way, of dogmatising about Leviticus xviii. 18. The bizarrerie of so placing him seems a companion at the opposite extreme to that of so placing Mr Bright. Learned Dr M'Caul we saw putting himself out of court by manifest want of sense here. So does good Dr Robert Moffat, in dogmatising about Lev. xviii. 18, that the only conceivable opinion is, the one he now holds—and the Christian world has always rejected. We thus have no argumentative need of the invidiousness of pressing against this missionary hero the point that here might be made on the ground, that he had long resided in a notoriously bad school of Old Testament criticism, namely heathen Africa, of mournful memory through a Christian bishop's perversion by a naturalistic Zulu. Dr Eadie, in his day a professional Greek New Testament scholar, here only echoes—long ago—what had previously been said, and answered, a hundred times. These, along with "the first three," are J. H. M 'K.'s only witnesses!

"These be thy gods, O Israel?" For his present purpose they really are valueless,—not worth a wooden calf, to say nothing of a golden one. But for our doctrine they serve a good purpose, of illustrating evaporation of a cloud of adverse witnesses.

"To the law and to the testimony"—at last! Let us hope that, after wilderness wanderings, we here may find a Canaan. (The wilderness is a way into the land of promised rest.)

New Testament.—At the opening (Mark vi, 17-28), a prophet, at the cost of his life, rebukes a king, who is ostentatious in professed allegiance to the Old Testament "law," for incest in having his brother's wife. It is only on the ground of that law (Mat. xi, 13) that the Baptist would utter such a rebuke: so that here a prophet bids us look to the Old Testament for God's law of incest and that with reference to the same degree of nearness of kin as a wife's sister. "To have a wife" is New Testament language for marriage. The brother was at this time divorced from Herodias. Herod's connection with her thus was no adultery, but distinctly incest—connective with near of kin. And it is to be noted that the only two cases of incest in the New Testament are cases of affinity, not of consanguinity. For now we observe, further, as to the second of them,—

When (1 Cor. v., 1) the new dispensation was fairly under weigh, the apache of the Gentiles, with extraordinary severity, rebuked a first class Christias Church for tolerating in her communication one guilty of incest in having his father's wife. If (2 Cor. vii., 12) that father was alive, there may in this case have been aggravation of adultery; and in any case the crime involved "fornication," as "the greater includes the less." But it is not ordinary fornication nor adultery that was "not so much as named among the Gentiles "-—far from it. On the other hand, among the Gentiles in Paul's view—those of the Græco. Roman world-connection of near of kin was regarded with deep horror; as Paul's Corinthians may have seen in dramatic representations of the Greek heroic age: where great calamities visit peoples, strike down kings, and follow princely houses through generations, on account of this unnaturalness. Further,

This Apostolic rebuke has in it an implication of a fortiori—"much more"-the thing is criminal for Christians, who have light of revelation (cp. Rom. ii., 1, etc.), than for heathens, who have only nature's light: From which it follows that the natural law of marriage is declared in the Old Testament; since only in the Old Testament the Christian light here presupposed can have existed A.D. 59 (2 Tim. iii., 15-17.) And scholarship here notes page 19 that Paul, at some cost of solecism in Greek, imports the very expression "father's wife" from the Old Testament law of incest, Lev. xviii., 8. Finally:—

Christ, too, with reference to the law of marriage, refers back to the Old Testament. His withdrawal (Mat. xix. 3, etc.) of the Mosaic permission of divorce was the opposite of abrogating the Old Testament declaration of nature's law. The permission was (ver. 9), for an evanescent purpose, a veil on the face of nature's law. And now the incarnate Lawgiver, removing the veil, brought back into clear view that primal constitution of the family as it is by creation of God: into whose mouth are put the words of the first Adam, according to a Scriptural manner in quoting words of man inspired of God. The Saviour's immediate purpose was, to show the native indissolubleness of marriage,* as involved in the essential capture of the marriage bond, represented by the Creator's word through the first of married men, "one flesh." The permanent exception to the rule of indisrableness lies outside of our present question. The indissolubleness itself is indirectly connected with that question as bringing into view a [unclear: red] separateness of family from every other kind of unity: such that (cp. Heb. xii 15, 16) to make any other union "sparing up" within it is a "defiling" "profanation." It also is connected with [unclear: r] subject directly, because it is through the unique oneness of husband and wife that, within the sacred circle of their family his relatives are in a real sense [unclear: bers], and hers his. Affinity thus is real in man's constitution, so that nature says of it, "What God hath joined together let not man take asunder." Family is the true "integer"—and integrating root—of human kind. It is of vast importance for mankind that the true essential nature of the constitution—unique in the universe—should beknown, for prevention of all violation of its native sacredness. And one of the great services of Bible religion to humanity—to social philosophy and morality—is its having brought the true native character of that union distinctly into view, enshrined in the solemnities of this religion, and shining at the very heart of its whole revelation, not only of law, but of saving grace and truth.

The union has a physical basis; but it is not a merely physical union, like that of animals. It is essentially, in accordance with the distinctively rational nature of man's constitution, moral or spiritual—union of souls. And to show this is (Eph. v. 22-33) a very important practical effect of the "great mystery" of this religion, in making marriage an emblem of the redeemed soul's union with God, the union of Jehovah with His covenant people, of Christ with the Church (see Is. Iv. 4, Rev. xxi. 2, 9; cp. Canticles). This does not make marriage a sacrament, as Romanism would make it. Sacraments belong only to the new creation of grace, while family (see "in all," Heb. xiii. 4) belongs to the old creation of nature: so that the marriage of heathens can be lawful and honorable; although, seeing that the union is essentially of souls, "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" is, as the Confession reminds us, an obvious dictate of Christian expediency. But—e.g., in the sacrament of initiation under both Testaments—the family appears in this religion as having a great spiritual office (cp. Gen. xvii. 8, Acts iii. 39): such that, e.g., (1 Cor. vii. 14) through family

* I have elsewhere ("The Sabbath Question) spoken of "provincial" laws of nature Extinguished from "imperial" (cp. Mat. il 30). In the case of the former the Law-[unclear: ver](P eut. xxv., 5) possesses a dispensing power: which is in the discretion of His moral sovereignty, and, in infinite wisdom, is exercised with a merciful consideration of [unclear: man] conditions. And though there should is no suspension of the law, there may (Mat. xii 7 in cases—e.g., of necessity and mercy be departure from the letter of the law in obedience to the spirit of it.

In the North American Review for December, 1890, Mr Gladstone stated that "the future of America, in its highest features, virtually depends on the incidents of marriage," that "the solidity and health of the social body depends upon the soundness of the unit," and that "that unit is the family."

It seems incredible that this season a professed adherent of the Confession, educated for the ministry of its doctrine, should here have found an argument for the Church's abandoning her Confessional doctrine of marriage!

page 20 children are brought into the life of new creation,—as Christ said, "of such is the kingdom of heaven."

In adults that new true life must have difficulty in subsisting where the primal constitution of our social nature is "profaned" in the sanctuary of its being, defiled in the fountain. Christians are under special obligation of their professed religion, not only to themselves conserve the family constitution, "pure and entire," so honoring God the Creator in Christ the Redeemer; but also to bear witness regarding it, as rooted in the true law of nature, for the information of all mankind, whom it vitally concerns to be right in relation to it. And the Christian obligation to faithfulness in that witness-bearing, as affecting the church's purity and the nation's whole well-being in well-doing, is greatly deepened by the fact as to this matter, that it "concerns the king": the Bible, the Bible religion, is dishonored by departure—especially if it be by a church—from that law, of marriage and of incest, to which we are directed in the New Testament (Eph. ii. 20) by prophet and apostle, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.

Old Testament.—It is a common mistake to imagine that our opposition to the marriage now in question is founded only on Lev. xviii., 6-18. It has foundations deep and wide in the whole revealed constitution of the family and of man as a social being; and also, *in constitutions and customs of heathen mankind who, not having the law, are in this matter a law unto themselves. But experience of heathen mankind shews—in the case of this law as of the moral law—that we have great need of a light above nature on what in a sense is in our nature. And the New Testament bids us look to the Old for the supernatural revelation we thus need. Consequently, we very willingly meet our opponents at the bar of that old Scripture to which they propose to restrict us: "Thou hast appealed unto Caesar—unto Caesar shalt thou go."

At this point there might be raised the whole question of the bearing of Old Testament revelation on the matter of affinity as bar to marriage. For instance, the Mosaic permission of divorce may be alleged as proof that marriage is one of the things relatively to which the Lord of nature might, for reasons approving them selves to His wisdom, more or less suspend the law of nature, even through a whole epoch of social history; and that consequently (1) toleration of marriage with a sister-in-law (Jacob's case) in the patriarchal age does not exclude prohibition of it in "the law" as "given by Moses," and (2) a supposed permission of it at Lev. xviii., 18 would not exclude the supposition of its being prohibited by the law of nature at vers. 6-17, but might only imply that here, too, as in the permission of divorce, there was a so far suspension of the law of nature in in the case of Old Testament Jews. But here and now to dwell on such wide issues as thus come into view might be to distract attention from the main direct line of Scripture proof regarding the law at present in question.

It may help to deepen interest in that proof, while illustrating the divine wisdom of the Old Testament constitution in laying a marriage law at the foundation of the nation's life, if, in addition to Mr. Gladstone's weighty words already quoted, I now quote a few words regarding the vast importance of the family constitution from two other distinguished authorities, an American divine and an Australian judge, both with reference to facilities for divorce in some American States, occasioning a new movement of thought regarding family ever the civilvised world:—
"Whatever," says Sir Alfred Stepher, "may be said regarding divorce extensive it appears to be universally conceded that in the great Commonwealth of America, or several of its States and Territories, there is a latitudinarianism in the laws on that subject, and a laxity in their administration, fatal eventually to the institution of marriage; whether we regard its holy character, or the mutual obligations, religious and moral, which it imposes. It is not denied that on the observance of these

* "Professors Watkins, of Durham, and Wellhausen, of Greifswald, while holding that the Levitical law did not prohibit the marriage in question, yet believe on other grounds that it ought not to be legalised" (Free Assembly Committee's report, p. 6.) These were among the Professors called as witnesses against the received view.

page 21 depend the laws which bind families [unclear: ther,] and sustain, the social fabric" Cont. Rev., June, 1891).

"The Christian sentiment," says the Rev. Dr Dike, "of the United States indicted [unclear: very] for its disregard of the family, and [unclear: ounced] Mormon polygamy with great real. But it has been slow to discover the insidious character of the licentiousness that [unclear: rupts] life in city and country, or to perceive the risks of loose marriage and divorce systems, or to look seriously at the widely [unclear: valent] vice that is repeating in some of [unclear: ar] older States the story of the decrease of the French family" (Cont. Rev., November 1893.)

That constitution, which is the nation's heart of life, is now assailed in its first line of defence—the prohibition in our question.

We restrict ourselves to Leviticus xviii., 6-18, where it is in the old Scripture that the great act of divine legislation as to the matter is recorded. And we begin with observing a fact on the face of that record, namely, that the whole commonality has a vital interest in the matter. While it is only individuals that can perpetrate the action here prohibited, yet here the law is addressed to a nation, with accompanying references to other nations, in such wise as to show that the nation is entitled to guard its own life against the crimes here condemned, and, with its own life, has to answer for them, even to nature, as well as to nature's God. And first in the preamble (vers. 3-5) God says to a nation—

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I king you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye I walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments and keep mine ordinances: I am the Lord your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them (cp. the "promise" of long life and prosperity in the family commandment—the fifth)

Whereupon there follows (vers. 6-18) a code of laws regarding incest, that is, intercourse within prohibited degrees of nearness, described as "uncovering nakedness." After which, with reference to such things, of which some other samples (vers. 19-23) are specified, the Lawgiver, still to that nation, utters warnings and threatenings (vers. 24-28) essentially more terrible than were the Decalogic thunderings and lightenings:—

Defile not yourselves with these things: for with all these things the nations are defiled which I cast out before you; and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth forth her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations: neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you. . . . That the land spue not you out also, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

Let us now consider the bearing of verses 6-18 on our present question. Regarding this, I submit three propositions:

i. Like the Decalogue, this is on the face of it, with a tinge of Hebrew or Old Testament coloring, a natural law. It presents no aspect of being merely ceremonial or only for Old Testament Jews, but every appearance of being for men as men—for mankind generally. Thus:—1. As to theme or sphere of the legislation, verse 6—cp. "Love God and thy neighbor." "Nearness of kin" is not peculiar to Jews in Palestine, but (cp. verse 26) is a condition common to all peoples everywhere. And as to the "these things" at verse 24 we observe (1) that, with one doubtful exception* (verse 31), the things referred to are in every case offences against nature in the intercourse of sexes; (2) that (verses 7-18) in almost all the cases the abominable unnaturalness is in respect of nearness of kin; and (3), that with reference to these there is no word of "marriage" or not "marriage,"-—but only of that "nearness," which is no specialty of any people, as marriage laws may be.

So,—2. As to the specifications in the detailed precepts—cp. the Ten Words. These bear only on the common condition of mankind on earth. If—cp. Ex. ii. 17

* Doubtful, because the horrible crime there specified may have been associated with certain impurities accompanying high excitement of heathen religion (cp. Mic. vi. 7).

page 22 —the manner of the appearance of woman here, as if only for illustration of what properly concerns the man, be a tinge of Old Testament coloring, it has extended to far beyond the Israel and Canaan of that olden time. As for the substance of the matter, there is nothing distinctively Jewish in whatever of characterisation is implied in the description "uncovering nakedness."

Natively and literally, the reference may be to only what in human intercourse has place among all peoples. But in Scripture use the expression is nowhere found describing the intercourse where it is contemplated as lawful or simply natural. It occurs very rarely in Scripture excepting here. Here it is the only expression for the thing in question, and it is found all through the code, alike (ver. 6) in the general intimation of the subject and (vers. 7-18) in every one of the detailed specifications. It is illustrated by what may be called the marginal expressions, "defile," "abomination," "confusion" which is revolting pollution (Lev. xx. 12; cp. xviii. 23). And in Scriptural use and wont it invariably—even in metaphor—has an implication of vile unnaturalness that is (in the words of Hebrew Professor Douglas) "disgusting and disgraceful," "degrading and corrupting," in the thing it speaks of. The marginal illustration is as it were crowned with terror by what (cp. Rom. viii. 20-22) is said of the very land on whose face men are thus vile—that it is polluted by them, and as if accursed for their sake, while casting them out as unbearably loathsome to even dead nature. The expression has an unpleasant baldness in its literalism that is absent from the ordinary Bible expression for human intercourse. And presumably it is chosen and set apart on account of that unpleasantness, for meet representation of a revolting moral character in the thing it represents in Scripture.

ii. The manner of declaring the law here is, through cases disclosing principles or rules. The Decalogue is a complete circle, defined by a boundary line of (ten) dots around one centre (love). Here, we have segments of several circles; every segment shewing the direction of a bounding line or, enabling us to find a radius and [unclear: cent] and so to complete a round. A radius and centre which enable us to complete a round in the given direction of a bounding line are thereby shewn to be, for that area, the alone true radius and centre. And here, the cases of incest that are specified enable us, through working out various circles, to form a complete law of incest, meeting all the cases that can arise,—on the supposition that the specified cases embody principles, or rules, to be applied to the unspecified cases, so as to place these on the table of prohibited degrees. And the supposition itself is established by the fact, of its alone enabling us to accomplish that completeness. It is established by this fact, because to give a law for incest is (ver. 6) the avowed purpose of the code, while a law that does not enable us to know what are the crimes in its domain fails to accomplish the purpose of a criminal law.

The process of in that way working out a table of prohibited degrees may, in Beza or Gerhard, seem confusingly intricate; as may Newton's mathematical process in astronomy. But the result is clear; and the clear completeness of the result is proof of the supposition that leads to it on a way of solid reasoning:—Here we have the alone true radius and centre, witness the completed round. Theory is Greek for "vision." Newton's gravitation supposition (Gr. "hypothesis") was shown to be the alone true theory of the mechanical universe by accounting far its facts, explaining them as a system, enabling us to see them (with reason's "inward eye") as a connected whole; while old astronomical hypotheses-of Epicycles and Vortices—were refuted by failing to account for the facts: shewn to be false explanations by not explaining So here: while the supposition—that the law is declared through cases indicating rules or principles—is shewn to be true by leading to a real view of the passage every other supposition is shewn to be false by giving no real view of the passage: thus proving itself to be (cp Rev. iii, 7) a thief's key that will not fit

"In regard to marriage, there are two general principles that seem to be maintained very emphatically in the New Testament: the one is, the inviolability of the marriage union; and the other the equality of the sexes in the eye of Christian precept:" (Free Assembly Committee's Report, p. 5).

page 23 the lock, or (Jn. x, 1) a robber's crow bar that breaks the door.*

For instance, the unspecified cases of a [unclear: an's] daughter, and of his grandmother, [unclear: re] met (only) by supposing that specified [unclear: ses] disclose a rule, namely, that [unclear: marri] unlawful between all who are ([unclear: reted] perpendicularly, so to speak) [unclear: desded] from the same father or mother. [unclear: ain], (collaterally) unspecified cases with reference to men are met by specified cases of women in the same degree of nearnes[unclear: s], the principle that what is prohibitor[unclear: y] the one side is prohibitory on the othe[unclear: r] parity of reason. Yet again, an specified case of relationship through marriage may be met through specified [unclear: ess] of that relationship (vers. 15-17) o[unclear: n] rule or principle that, as bar to marriage on account of nearness of kin, [unclear: faity] is equivalent to consanguinity. [unclear: d] the supposition, which in this way explains the passage, giving a real view of it, consequently has the passage for its proof; as the facts of the mechanical system prove the gravitation theory which accounts for them. The supposition, on the other hand, that the unspecified cases are not to be thus met—through principles appearing in specified cases—is refuted by the fact, that this would make it impossible to form a complete law of incest out of Lev. xviii. 6-18: since it thus would imply that the the divine legislation fails in its purpose, to be a directory for human life in man's fundamentally vital social relation.

In particular as to the case of a deceased wife's sister. A particular case may be established on the ground of more than one principle disclosed in the code (as a dot may be on the bounding line of several circles), and here in connection with the distinct evidence of cases at verses 15 to 18 the principle of the equivalence of affinity to consanguinity is proved by its alone accounting for the following facts in the code as a whole,—1. Here are cases of affinity, as many as of consanguinity; 2. The two classes are not grouped separately, like sheep and goats, as if essentially differing in the present relation, but are brought forward indiscriminately, like men and women on their way to church; and, 3. The physical description and moral characterisation of the action are the same for the affinity cases as for the consanguinity case.—Either the affinity here counts for something real, or it does not. It can count for nothing real here except on the supposition, that here it is made equivalent to consanguinity. The contrary supposition, making explanation of the code impossible, is a key that fits not the lock or a crowbar that breaks the door. It leads to what is shewn to be a false view by being no view. It makes the whole passage unintelligible: throwing into meaning-lessness of chaotic inconsequence, as of a mere incoherent heap of details without life or being as a whole, a most memorably great historical act of—like the giving of the moral law—professedly divine legislation, which in practical effect, as directing human life in its root mundane relation, has been, and is, fundamental in creating and sustaining

* "Among the Professors' opinions [unclear: coltd] by the Marriage Law Reform [unclear: Assolation] there is one especially which shew[unclear: s] far the principle of regarding every marriage as legitimate that is not expressly [unclear: dden] in Leviticus would carry us. D[unclear: r] de Yong, Professor of Hebrew in Utrech[unclear: t], 'Not prohibited marriages are,—with [unclear: her's] brother's wife, of an uncle with a [unclear: ce] of nephew and niece [here, says the [unclear: ort], is something unintelligible—through [unclear: print] or mistranslation?], with a wife's [unclear: ter] after the death of the wife.' Even thi[unclear: s] not perfectly consistent; for if Professor de [unclear: ag] will not even extend the prohibitio[unclear: n] a father's brother's wife to a mother's mother's wife, what does he make of the absence of all prohibition of marriage [unclear: th] a daughter, which does not occur i[unclear: n] list of either prohibited or not [unclear: prohited?"] (Free Assembly Report p. 4.—[unclear: fessor] de Yong's principle is [unclear: a] crowbar [unclear: th] breaks the door.)

Again (p. 3 of same Report),—'Professor [unclear: rell] of St. Andrews, whose statement i[unclear: s] only one that fairly deals with this [unclear: ist], holds the principle that marriage is [unclear: rred] by [the woman—the Report throws 'having been married to any one of which (sic) the above closeness of relationtion be averred.' Opinions, etc., p. 74. But the principle is clearly inadequate to [unclear: re] all the specified cases; for in ver. 17 Marriage with a wife's daughter or grand-[unclear: hter] is forbidden" (Professor Birrell's [unclear: ciple] is a key that fits not the lock).

page 24 the distinctive social life, not only of God's new kingdom ever since the exodus, but, all through the Christian centuries, of the new and only true moral civilisation of mankind.

iii. The supposed stronghold at Lev. xviii. 18, and strong point at the final "in her life time," so far from proving permission of the marriage in question, really proves prohibition of it. The contribution (which was above referred to) of Hebrew scholarship towards the elucidation of this text is the suggestion of (marg.) "a woman (or wife) to another," as alternative rendering, instead of the generally received rendering in our version, "a wife to her sister" (quixotically battled for by Dr M'Caul). The suggested rendering is in accordance with a Hebrew idiom. But here it somewhat strains Hebrew grammar, while there is in the text no justifying necessity, of "exigency of the place," for any strain on language. The generally received rendering, which is in full accordance with both idiom and grammar, gives an exegetically "good meaning," that is, a meaning in accordance with the scope of the whole passage. My argument here will proceed on this unstrained obvious construction of the language.

(1) That the verse does not permit the marriage in question, appears as follows:—1. The inference at the final "in her lifetime,"—of permission after her decease from prohibition before it,—is, though thoughtlessly accepted by able men, really silly: as if (to use a common illustration) "in the days of thy youth," with reference to remembering one's Creator, were made to imply permission to forget Him afterwards! 2. On the view that ver. 18 permits the marriage in question, it will follow that the verse at the same time permits bigamy if the wives be not sisters,—while on our view of vers 6-17 the marriage of a deceased's wife's sister will be incest. 3. The opposition view places ver. 18 in opposition to the whole preceding legislation, vers. 6-17, partiaularly vers. 15-17, in its principle of the equivalence of affinity to consanguinity. And 4. All this violence, so far from being called for by anything within ver. 18 itself, really is repelled by that verse, in its body, soul, and spirit. We thus are led on to further observe,

(2) That the verse forbids the marriage—There are several explanations of i[unclear: t] his view. Any plausible or passable explanation will suffice to meet the point of question here. Yea, as we observed, though there should be no producible explanation, that for us would only make a difficulty, such as often occurs, incumbering belief of an otherwise sufficiency evidenced truth. I restrict myself to the explanation which appears to me [unclear: bes] namely, that propounded by Augustan and many others—making the [unclear: prohibi] here to be, not of bigamy simply, but of bigamy in which the wives are sisters so that the reason of prohibition in this case is the incest in it. 1. This gives an exegetically "good meaning," [unclear: nam] "If you will have two wives, see that they be not sisters. That would be [unclear: inc] under this law." 2. It is in keeping with relative Old Testament history, where, in fact, though simple bigamy be not permitted or sanctioned, it does not appear as forbidden. 3. It places vers[unclear: e] on the line of verses 6-17, prolonge[unclear: d] a completion of the code. This completion, in express declaration of what is implied at verses 15-17, may (though thus far involving repetition), have been deemed necessary or desirable for the purpose of preventing the Jevs from imagining that for them the example of "their father Jacob" (Jn. iv, 12) was a precedent, exempting them, in the case of two sisters, from the principle of the equivalence of affinity to consanguinity-4. And especially (in proof of a "good meaning" exegetically), it saves the dignity, sustains the majestic seriousnessness, of the culminating utterance of a momentous code, by giving to the final "in her life time," instead of the trivialty of meaning that results from the aforesaid silliness of inference * a soul of meaning full [unclear: faru] with an all but tragic depth of [unclear: tendern] "pity, and terror."

The life long "vexation" (cp 1, Sam xv, 35) it males to be, not the comparative

* It is not logically inconceivable tha[unclear: t] above suggested) there should in this case be exemption for Old Testament Jew* as there must have been exemption in a stronger caste for the original household of our first pa rents. My contention is, of various grounds, that here, in point of fact there is not exemption, but the opposite

page 25 [unclear: ness] of "worry,"—discomfort and [unclear: tion] incidental to bigamy even wher[unclear: e], not prohibited, it was not disgraceful those implicated in it—; but, the far [unclear: nder] pain—with woful shame (see xix 4 ch, I Sam iv, 21, 2 Sam xiii, [unclear: 12], xix, 23, xx, 6)—to "a mother i[unclear: n] or a Hebrew wife, arising out o[unclear: f] here, "to uncover her nakedne[unclear: ss]" first wife's): a connection vile in [unclear: unalness], forced upon her, inextricably [unclear: hout] life, to dishonor her marriage pollute her household and defile he[unclear: r] in and through the two who by nature [unclear: er] nearest, turning that very nearnes[unclear: s] perpetuity of abominable "profanati[unclear: on]" (iii, 15,16) of the innermost shrine o[unclear: f] natural relationship to each other [unclear: and]

correspondingly,—5, while at the op[unclear: en]-of the sentence, where it is a "wife" second) that is spoken of, the [unclear: expres]-employed ("take a wife") is ordinary [unclear: aism] for entering into marriage,—as (is her (injured?) sister (the firs[unclear: t] (comes on the field of vision, and our [unclear: d] eye is turned full on her, then, [unclear: th] expressly pointed reference to her [unclear: ings] (of outraged "honor"—Heb xii, in person and right?) there is resume[unclear: d] the code (vers. 6-17) the branding [unclear: ssion] "uncover nakedness" significant of "defilement," "abomination," polluting "confusion."

What thus becomes disclosed is, at the base of the family constitution, a strong guard on woman, in her most sacred feelings and rights, where (especially in a crude inchoate condition of moral civilisation) she is by nature most peculiarly helpless in exposure to most cruel irremediable wrong. It has been suggested similarly, that the Mosaic permission of divorce may have been intended for a guard on woman's helplessness: opening a way of escape from what, in the "hardness" of that old time (Mat. xiv., 9), and her comparative lowness of condition, might be a position of dreadful suffering and even peril. In this way there slimes out at ver. 18, on the face of Israel's Lawgiver (Ps. ciii., 13-14) a divinely humane considerateness, like that appearing in His guard on helplessness,—of widow and orphan, slave and stranger—at the base of the national constitution, Ex. xxi—xxiii.—"Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, O ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." (Ps. ii., 10-13.


Printed at the Oamaru Mail Office, Tyne Street, Oamaru.

page break

By the Same Author.

The Apologetic Series.—Three independent works—they combine in representation of the view that proof of Christianity is constituted by the whole historical appearance of this religious among mankind. The central substance of the representation is in "The Apology of the Christian Religion historically regarded" with reference to supernatural Revelation and Redemption. This in effect is a commentary on the external evidence:—(1) Indirect external evidence, furnished by the success of this religion, to the effect of a new moral creation of mankind, as appearing in the second century; and (2) Direct external evidence, constituted by miracle in works and words of Christ and His Apostles, and of Moses and the Prophets The following two companion works are in completion of the representation, respectively by way of logical foundation and of corroborative illustration to that central substance in "The Apology."

I. Logical Foundation.—"The Revelation and the Record," now published, is occupi[unclear: ed] (under the head of revelation, with supernaturalism, as involved in the system of things (e.g.) free-will and the fact of religion), as implied in the internal evidence of Christianity and the Bible, and as operative in the inspiration of Scripture; (2) under the head of Record, with proof of the New Testament canon—the New Testament Scriptures generally, the Gospels is especial, Mark in particular.

II. Corroborative Illustration, from the manner in which this matter (of proof of Bible religion), addressing itself to all men, has been dealt with by Christ and His Apostles, and by their followers in post-apostolic times, primitive and modern. This is exhibited in the forth coming work, now ready, "Studies in the History of Christian Apologetics," of which the contents are as follows:—

Book I. "Apologetics in New Testament History." Chap. 1st: In the Ministry of Christ—1. His introduction to apology; 2. His apologetic practice—(1) appeal to prophecy, (2) to miracle, (3) His personal testimony. Chap. 2nd: In the Apostolic Ministry—1. General aspect, with a reference to Christ's resurrection; 2. Definite belief in miracle in the middle apostolic age; 3. Apologetics in Pauline practice and Petrine prescription.

Book II. "Apologetics in its Two Post-Apostolic Periods." Chap. 1st: Primitive Period of Apologetics.—(1) The apologetic situation; (2) The Apologists and their witnessing Church; (3) Retrospect of the period. Chap. 2nd; Modern Period of Apologetics—(1) Bearing on early Reformation and preceding "ages of faith"; (2) Movement within the new apologize period; (3) The existing apologetic situation—the New Testament; (4—Supplementary) Latest phase—the Old Testament question (with copious notes and appendix, exhibiting the literary history of this question).

The Apology, &c. (Price, 10s 6d).—A powerful and original statement of the external evidence (Prof. Candlish, D.D., in The Modern Church).—His book does indeed reach the magnificent claim which its title makes for it. Fresh and original it cannot help being. It is also sustained and powerful, an apology of the noblest kind (Expository Times).—(With reference to the author's description of it as "a layman's book"),—This it is in the best sense, and only the best sense (New York Evangelist).

The Revelation, &c. (Price, 7s 6d).—Every page of this volume bears the mark of competent knowledge and accurate thought. Taken altogether, the three volumes will unquestionably serve the end, and be to us an apology for the Christian religion that touches almost every assailed or assailable point, and is yet strong and convincing (Expository Times).—This book gives us the thoughts of a strong theologian, who has studied many questions deeply, and is able to hold his own with most opponents (Critical Review),

Studies in &c.—This vol. is in the publisher's hands on its way to publication (perious 7s 6d).

Other Works by the Same Author.

The Book of Exodus, with introduction and commentary, 2 vols., crown 8vo., price 2s each (Handbook series).—Remarkably good and complete (Church Bells).—An excellent manual (Literary Churchman).—A. marvel of compact thought and criticism. ., This really great work on Exodus. . . . Every sentence is weighty, striking, and suggestive The introduction is, up to date, the finest and fullest essay on the Second Book of Moses (Brighouse Gazette).—A marvellous repertory of information. . . . To our judgment it is the ablest and most compendious exposition of the Book of Exodus ever published in this country (Methodist New Connexion Mogszine).—It (the Introduction) is one of the best digests of modern thought and research on the exodus that we have seen. The notes which follow on the text are full and suggestive (London Quarterly Review).—The intro page break [unclear: ions] are brilliant samples of severe [unclear: contion] along with winsome vivacity of [unclear: le] The exposition is throughout [unclear: emitly] sound and searching, while the [unclear: exer] prescribed to students are drawn up wit[unclear: h] skill of an expert (Christion Lend)—As Bible class manual it is simply splendid [unclear: er] Magazine).

The Epistle to the Galatians (with Introduction and notes), crown 8vo., price 1s 6[unclear: d] first of the Handbook series, now in 2n[unclear: d] of 5,000).—As much solid learning and [unclear: estive] thought as is rarely found in books [unclear: e] or four times its size. His introduction admirably discusses such questions as &c. . . . . His notes are the outgrowth of a keen and searching analysis, a depth of spiritual intuition, and fine expository powers which invest them with the highest worth (Bartist Magazine).—Sound, fresh, vigorous, readable, and learned, it opens up the Epistle in a way which makes its meaning plain to the commonest capacity (Free Church of Scotland Record).—If the rest of the books (Handbook series—Dods and Whyte) should show equal condensation of thought, the result will be beyond all praise (Sword and Trowel).

The above works are published by T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh.

Churistian Doctrine: Text-book for Youth—12th thousand: paper covers, 6d; cloth, 1s.

"We have pleasure in calling the attention of ministers and teachers of Bible classes to the [unclear: able] text-book of Christian doctrine recently published by Mr Elliot (Edinburgh). I[unclear: n] comprehensiveness of its plan, the precision of its statements, and the fulness and apposi[unclear: te]-of its Scripture proofs, it seems to us to be far superior to any work of the kind with [unclear: ch] we are acquainted."—(Signed) Rob, S. Candlish, D.D., Edinburgh; John Robson, D.D., [unclear: gow] William Cunningham, D.D., New College, Edinburgh; James Begg, D.D., [unclear: Edin]; Andrew Thomson, D.D., Edinburgh; Julius Wood, D.D., Dumfriés.