recall the clearly defined meaning of holiness in the Old Testament—namely, that which is separate, distinct, set apart. Any creature, animate or inanimate, which was separated from ordinary or profane use and consecrated to God, any being or thing that received ceremonial cleansing was sanctified or called holy. The Sabbath was holy, the Levites were holy, the first-born were holy, so were the tabernacle and all its vessels. Jerusalem was the holy city. Whatever stood in special relations to God or sacred things bore the stamp of holiness, without any reference to intrinsic or internal purity. To the charge that external sanctity has no place under the New Covenant, we reply that in the nature of things and inevitably the New Testament Church is in large measure encompassed by the realm of Old Testament ideas. The question of their continuance or their absolute renunciation formed the most serious problem which confronted the infant Christian community, and the correlation of the Old and the New Covenants rendered it impossible for it to cut loose at once from the past. A most striking proof of this is offered by the constant use throughout the New Testament of the terms sanctification, holy, and their opposites, common or profane, or unclean, expressive of the ceremonial conceptions derived from the Old Testament.

The sheet in Peter's vision containing all manner of four-footed beasts and wild beasts, which Peter regarded 66 common or unclean," the Canon of the Apostolic Council concerning the pollutions of idols, the ever-recurring argument of St. Paul inculcating charity toward those who were still befogged by the distinctions of holy and unclean with respect to days and meat and drink, "which are a shadow of things to come," are familiar examples. In 1 Tim. iv. 4, 5 the apostle combats those who forbid marrying and meats evidently on the score of their unholiness, and declares " every creature of God is good," "for it is sanctified by the Word

of God and prayer.” On the other hand, in 2 Cor. vi. 14-17, where intercourse with the heathen had reached a stage which threatened to corrupt Christian society and to obliterate all distinctions, the same apostle exclaims : "What part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God. . . . Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing."

Taking in connection with the latter passage 1 Cor. vii. 1, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," it becomes evident that under the influence of current ideas derived from Judaism, a Christian wife or husband would be apprehensive that intercourse with a heathen spouse would violate the sanctity of the Christian life, and that separation thus became imperative. Nay, not so, says the apostle, stilling such fears, separation is not called for; the unbelieving one by this vital relation to you becomes sanctified, stands in a sacred environment. Your union with him really withdraws him in a sense from the contamination of heathen im. purity, brings him into a Christian atmosphere, into contact with the means of grace and under the influences of the Holy Ghost. Externally at least, though yet an unbeliever, such an one is brought into sacred relations-i.e., sanctified, nyíɑoraι ¿v τŋ yʊvā‹kí, cf. i. 2 ἡγιασμένοις ἐν χριστῷ Ιησού, Marriage is itself a holy state, appointed of God, and a Christian, a temple of God, is not defiled when a believer is thus bound to an unbeliever. The latter becomes sanctified as does also the offspring of such a union. The children contract no ceremonial impurity from being be gotten in such wedlock. They are not beyond the hallowed pale of God's people, no curse of idolatry excludes them from consecrated limits. Nothing stands in the way of their coming into the fullest Christian fellowship. They are acceptable to God. The one parent is truly, intrinsically holy. What

ever he or she possesses becomes on Christian principle holy to the Lord. He or she, as the case may be, consecrates his or her partner to the Lord, and likewise the children of both. Their organic relation to a holy one thus involves their being set apart to God. The family is one and the faith, of either parent makes it a Christian family in idea and confers the color of sanctity on all its members.

This does not insure their subjective, ethical renewal any more than the sanctification of the priests made them ethically holy, yet it is a help to that end, it affords a ground of hope for it. The relative sanctification facilitates the real sanctification of the heart. It brings the subject within the circle of the Church's activity. It puts him in touch with the leaven of grace, and through the mighty power of these spiritual influences under the most favorable circumstances-namely, those of an endearing vital union with one surcharged with these influences, he is destined to be won to Christ. The Christian principle is operative, diffusive, penetrating. The prayers, the counsels, the temper, the life of the believing parent, are likely to be felt by the entire household. The blessing of a pious spouse or of pious parents, the blessed influences which accrue to the members of a Christian home, are beyond measurement. The exterior sanctity lays the foundation for interior sanctification. The energy of Divine grace going forth from the life of one believer operates as a practical power imperceptibly and continuously upon those who enjoy the closest living union with him. The sacred relation of being the husband, wife, or child of a Christian serves as the appointed means of their conversion. Through the living faith of a parent, salvation, as in the case of Zaccheus, comes to one's house.

The Date of the Decalogue. BY TALBOT W. CHAMBERS, D.D. THE article ISRAEL, contributed by

Wellhausen to the Encyclopædia Britannica in 1881, was afterward reprinted as an appendix to the English translation of his Prolegomena. It recently has been issued in an independent volume with the title "Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah," purporting to be the "third edition." It starts with the beginnings of the nation and comes down to the Jewish dispersion, thus taking in the whole course of events to the present time. It proceeds from first to last on extreme naturalistic principles, and deals with the sacred records just as one would deal with any secular annals of purely human origin. Notwithstanding, therefore, the learning and the brilliancy of the distinguished author, his sketch is much more of a romance than a history. He moulds his materials after a preconceived theory, and gets just the results to be expected from that method of writing a record of the past. He finds myths and legends everywhere in the Bible, and the consequence is the production of a greater myth than any that he has discovered in the Hebrew writers.

It

Wellhausen's treatment of the Decalogue is a conspicuous specimen of his usual method. In his view the whole proceeding at Sinai has only a formal, not to say, dramatic significance. was simply an appeal to the imagination. "For the sake of producing a solemn and vivid impression that is represented as having taken place in a single, thrilling moment which in reality occurred slowly and almost unobserved." That is to say, the whole solemn scene at Sinai, recounted in Exodus with such simple yet striking details, is a deliberate imposture. The mountain did not shake; there were no thunders and lightnings; no trumpet sounded; nor did the voice of God come forth from the thick darkness. All this is mere poetic invention. What a genius the man must have been who constructed this stupendous narrative out of his own unassisted faculties, made it so coherent and suggestive, and so care

fully avoided everything inconsistent with the dignity and importance of the occasion? Where in the history or literature of any age or country is there anything approaching this account in simplicity and majesty? The more one considers it the more he feels that, like the wondrous story of the transfiguration, it proves itself; but let us see the arguments which Wellhausen brings forward against the authenticity of the twentieth chapter of Exodus.

I. The first one is that "according to Ex. xxxiv. the commandments which stood upon the two tables were quite different." But this is an entire mistake. In the first verse of the chapter mentioned Jehovah directs Moses to hew two new tablets of stone, saying that He would write upon them the words that were on the first tables. Moses obeyed, and we are told (verse 28) that God wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments." So that the alleged proof is no proof at all. It is possible that the intention of the author was to refer to the repetition of the Decalogue given in Deuteronomy (verses 6-21), in which there are several variations from the text of Exodus, especially in the fourth command, where the basis of the precept is laid not in God's example in creation, but in the wonderful deliverance from Egypt. But none of these changes interferes with the integrity of the code. In both cases the same duties are enjoined and in the same order, and whatever explanation may be given of the variations, this fresh recital of the Decalogue and of the circumstances of its delivery is an additional confirmation of its historic character.

II. The next reason is that the prohibition of images was at that period quite unknown; Moses himself made a brazen serpent "which down to Hezekiah's time continued to be worshipped as an image of Jehovah." But we answer how does the learned professor know what he asserts, or is his simple assertion to be taken as evidence? The

tenor of the entire previous history is against the use of images as a recog nized means of worship. The brazen serpent was certainly not made for any such purpose, and its perversion to an idolatrous use in subsequent ages furnishes no reason why the second commandment may not have been given from Sinai, any more than the worship of Baalim in the time of the Judges (ii. 13) is an argument to show that the first commandment did not exist at that

time.

The author's use of this incident is characteristic of the way in which he and his school handle the biblical narrative. He says that the serpent continued to be worshipped down to Hezekiah's time, as if the worship began when the brazen figure was made; but there is not a hint of this kind during the long tract of centuries between Moses and Hezekiah. All that we can learn from Scripture is that during the reign of the latter king the image was destroyed, because the Israelites burned incense to it. When this worship began is not stated. That it was of comparatively recent origin seems a natural inference from the fact that, while the previous history often mentions idolatrous practices, as from time to time indulged in by the covenant people, nothing is said of this particular kind of idolatry. It is true that Dean Stanley tells us that the brazen image was brought by Solomon from Gibeon with the tabernacle, but this is without any foundation in the canonical Scriptures. For all we know, it may have been left in the desert and not transferred to Jerusalem till the time of Ahaz. But suppose the fact to be otherwise, suppose that the people were in the habit of worshipping the brazen serpent, how does that prove the late date of the second command? That command does not purport to have come from the people, or to have been in any sense the expression of their views, but on the contrary, to be the voice of God. The habitual violation of the command is no evidence that it was not set forth by the

Most High in the form and manner stated in Exodus.

III. "The third reason for disputing the early date of the Decalogue is the inconsistency of its universal code of morals, "with the essentially and necessarily national character of the older phases of the religion of Jehovah." The entire series of religious personalities from Deborah to David make it difficult, we are told, to believe that the religion of Israel was from the outset one of a specifically moral character. This reasoning, we answer, has much force as applied to those who consider the religion of the Old Testament to be a purely natural development, a product of civilization as conducted under merely earthly and human influences. But it is of no force at all against believers in supernaturalism, as are all the defenders of the traditional date of the Decalogue.

We distinctly maintain that the code from Sinai was a revelation from heaven, given at the best period for its announcement. It was in no respect dependent upon the character or condition of those to whom it was first given. It set forth the religious and moral duties that belong to man as man in any age or land. Its completeness and purity have never been equalled, much less excelled; and in these respects it is as much above the average moral insight of the eighth century B.C. as it was above that of the fifteenth century B.C. It is not at all the result of men's reflections on moral obligation, as is shown by the fact that nothing approaching itin simplicity, fulness, and brevity has ever been evolved by any people, not even excepting the most brilliant and polished.

Its intrinsic character, therefore, testifies to its origin. It was a God-given code. Its promulgation was reserved until the chosen seed had developed into a nation ready to maintain an independent position upon its own soil. A rich, varied, and significant ritual was provided for Israel, but accompanying it was an ethical system, exalted far above all rites and ceremonies by the

manner in which it was recorded and then proclaimed to the people. There was a singular appropriateness in the time when it was made known. A century before it would have been impossible; a century afterward it would have been almost equally so amid tribal jars and jealousies.

66

IV. A fourth reason in favor of Wellhausen's theory is the monotheism which is undoubtedly presupposed in the universal moral precepts of the Decalogue. The rationalistic school insists that monotheism was not reached by the covenant people until the age of Hezekiah. Previous to that time Jehovah was only the national God of the Hebrews, by no means exclusive or supreme, but simply holding the same relation to them that Baal did to the Canaanites or Dagon to the Philistines. But this is mere assertion, resting upon a most arbitrary and irrational dislocation of the existing Scriptures and a gross perversion of their natural meaning. The idea of one God pervades the warp and the woof of the Pentateuch. There are, indeed, gods many and lords many" recognized by the uncircumcised heathen, but these are contemptuously disowned by the Hebrews, who acknowledge only one true and living God. Often, indeed, they fell away to the service of rival deities, but such a lapse was always regarded and treated as an apostasy for which there was no excuse. This is the plain meaning of the record given in the early books of the Old Testament; nor were they ever understood otherwise until men undertook to explain these writings as made or compiled or revised at a late period of the monarchy, and hence as asserting a form of religious opinion which by no means actually existed in the early age of Hebrew history, and indeed could not possibly have arisen at that period.

Such, then, is the argument by which the common faith of the Jewish Church and the Christian on this important theme is assailed. It professes to be intensely rational and scientific. Is it

such? Is it not rather the exact contrary, resting upon unsound premises and illegitimate deductions, taking for granted what needs to be proved and leaping to a forced conclusion? Nor is the error a small one. If the authority of the Decalogue can be set aside in this summary way, so may every other important portion of the Old Testament, and the underpinning of the whole fabric of Scripture falls to pieces. Nay, the peculiar claims and character of the Bible as a revelation from God are destroyed. The living oracles, in

stead of being a gradual disclosure of God's wisdom and love, ripening through successive ages until the fulness of time came, are the slow evolution of human thought, passing through various stages, and often mixed with fable and legend, until at last the pure truth is reached, the husk finally drops off, and the kernel appears. Thus the wisdom of man is substituted for the wisdom of God. Divine authority is done away, and our feet rest no more upon impregnable rock, but totter upon the shifting sand.

It is impossible to find language which will truly state how great a curse the saloon is. In these more recent days it has become organized, despotic, and Satanic to an unusual degree; it has become an institution. It has resolved upon the possession of political power, and it is massing all its forces with that end in view. It finds politicians ready to bow down and worship at its feet for the sake of the votes which it promises to secure and deliver. It moves forward with gigantic strides, with aggressive purpose, and with marvellous wisdom, toward the attainment of these unholy ends. It possesses large amounts of wealth, and it can secure vast and varied talents, legal and political, bad and worse, for the accomplishment of its ambitious and devilish purposes. No one ought to underestimate the magnitude of its resources; no one ought to be blind to the peril of our position. It claims to have-and the claim seems justified by the facts a thousand millions of dollars invested in its unmanly and ungodly business; it claims to have no fewer than five hundred thousand employés under its

immediate control; it claims to have millions of followers ready to obey its nod, so far as political thinking and voting are concerned. Its revenues are larger and its profits greater, it is said, than those of the one hundred and forty thousand miles of railroad in the United States. All these external sources of power are supported and emphasized by the appetites and passions of millions of its victims. No one can examine these statements and for a moment doubt the impossibility of exaggerating the resources for evil of the saloon.

It stalks abroad through the land, destroying all that is noblest in our civilization and holiest in our religion. In the description which the Prophet Daniel gives us, in the seventh chapter of the book which is called by his name, of the various beasts which he saw in the vision, in the seventh verse we are told of one particular beast (the fourth) which was dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns." This is certainly a striking description. The form of this beast is not given, as was that of the