The preacher must tell the whole truth. Both sin and salvation need to be presented, for both are true. To declare sin and its consequence, without presenting the antidote therefor and inviting to the "better way," would be ineffective, even if possible. To invite men to the "better way" without warning them of the consequences of refusal and without once intimating to them that they are even now lost, if out of Christ, would be to preach but half a Gospel.

Holding

But some preachers seem not to be able to see this aright. strenuously to the motto they have chosen as best fitting this age of the emancipation of Christian thought from the stern legalism of the past, namely, "Draw, not drive," they drift to an extreme quite as far from the true way as that from which they recoil so vehemently. "Draw if you can, drive if you must," would seem to be the better motto, thereby sustaining a mediate position. Sometimes reference is made by these good but misled brethren to Moses and to Christ, in which the teaching methods of both are contrasted, and from which contrast some show of authority is drawn for their position. Perhaps, if they were to look broadly at both, they would be able to see that the method the one is supposed to prefer, while not perhaps followed by the other as a leading principle, is at least not slighted by him. Only in our narrow view does Moses seem to be a stranger to positive religious teaching, and Christ to do very little of the negative sort. Two themes carefully studied will reveal this as can nothing else, namely, "The Gospel by Moses and the prophets," and "The law according to Christ and the apostles."

Let the writer not be misunderstood. I would not compare Moses with Christ as a model preacher. I would, however, contend for the harmony I believe exists between them. Moses, from the standpoint of law, gave to the world the first statement of the principles of the Gospel. Christ, from the same standpoint, completed the message. Moses " was faithful . . . as a servant . . . ; but Christ, as a son.”

So, it seems to the writer that denunciation is an essential feature of true Gospel preaching. True, it may not always, as at some times, be in evidence. But, on the other hand, it cannot be totally ignored in symmetrical preaching, any more than can be its correlative, invitation. Bald Mountain, Colo. J. A. LONG.

DEPRAVITY.

In the July-August Review for 1898 Judge H. L. Sibley discusses the source of depravity, which he finds in actual transgression. "Each one's personal sin is what brings it [depravity] to him, not that of an ancestor, near or remote." In harmony with this he postulates "for all souls the sinlessness, purity, and consequent harmony with God's will which were the essential elements of man's original holiness." Laying aside the question whether the Scriptures teach the inherited depravity of Adam's posterity, the Judge's position demands critical examination. He arrives at his conclusion from two considerations: (1) The equity

of the case. "Justice demanded they [Adam's descendants] should be saved from this awful inheritance [depravity], if possible to divine power and consistent with God's moral government." It is then argued that it is possible to Omnipotence and consistent with moral government under the economy of redemption to destroy depravity. (2) The second argument is from the position of childhood in the scheme of redemption. Since the child is by the "unconditional' efficacy of the atonement ” ushered into the kingdom of God, therefore he is free from depravity. But this is worthless as an argument concerning the transmission of depravity. Are all in the kingdom of heaven free from depravity? Unquestionably they are not. Hence it follows that childhood may be both saved and depraved.

But, passing these minor details, let us proceed at once to the root of the misconception that permeates the entire article. The fundamental assumption is that depravity is of such a nature that its inheritance would be incompatible with the demands of justice. But what is there in the nature of depravity to justify such a position? The Judge's contrast of sinless purity with depravity and his use of such a term as "foul corruption" as synonymous with depravity betray plainly that, in his view, depravity is vaguely associated with sin and guilt. Sin certainly could not be inherited. Sin is always and only a willful transgression of a known law. Guilt could not be transmitted; it is a part of sin and separable from it only in thought. But depravity is neither sin nor guilt. It is moral weakness-occasioned by sin, it is true, but merely weakness, after all. It carries no more guilt than a defective vision or a deformed limb. It is to the moral nature what the latter are to the physical-imperfections that carry no blame. Hence we can assert with the Judge that all are born sinless, while we still affirm all are born depraved. This conception of depravity robs of all its force the Judge's plea from equity. Plainly there is no more injustice in the transmission of depravity thus limited than of disease or mental infirmity, and that they are transmitted is a matter of everyday observation. Will anyone impugn the divine justice on this account?

Of course, if depravity were sinful and exposed its possessor to the penalty of violated law, justice would demand that Omnipotence forbid its transmission. Judge Sibley's argument would then be intact. But if depravity simply be weakness the case stands on a very different footing. The utmost that justice can demand in this case is that if a weak race be permitted to propagate it be under a government suited to its needs. And this is precisely what the scheme of redemption purports to be a modification of the divine government to adapt it to weakness. It is the divine plan of training a weak race into moral robustness and strength. The cross was an extraordinary expedient justified only by the needs of an impaired moral nature. To deny depravity is to deny such needs and make the cross of " none effect."

Pensauken, N. J.

E. J. KULP.

THE ITINERANTS' CLUB.

A STUDY IN COMPARATIVE EXEGESIS: JACOB AND ESAU-Rom. ix, 13. THERE are many passages of Scripture whose interpretation is practically the same by all exegetes. Their contextual relations are so manifest and their language is so clear that it is almost impossible to miss their meaning. There are others which have formed the "battle ground" of exegetes, on which the struggles have been carried on for generations, and to which no solution satisfactory to all scholars has yet been reached.

The passage under consideration belongs to the latter class. It is not proposed in this paper to solve the problems which this text involves, but rather to present an outline of comparative exegesis which may serve young preachers as a basis for personal study. A few quotations from the commentaries will show the wide diversity of views concerning it. We may not be able to present the complete expression of the writers' opinions, because of the necessary brevity of the citations, but the general drift will be apparent to the careful reader. Hodge, for instance, says: "This passage relates to the descendants of Jacob and Esau, as well as to the individuals themselves; the favor shown to the posterity of the one, and withheld from that of the other, being founded on the distinction originally made between the two brothers. The meaning, therefore, is that God preferred one to the other, or chose one instead of the other. As this is the idea meant to be expressed, it is evident that in this case the word 'hate' means 'to love less,' 'to regard and treat with less favor.'" It is evident from the context with which this passage stands that Hodge regards this passage as applying both to the election of the individuals Jacob and Esau to eternal life, and also to theocratic position; for, on the words, “neither having done good nor evil," he says, "It was to show that the ground of choice was not in them, but in God; and this is the main point in regard to the doctrine of election, whether the choice be to the privileges of the eternal theocracy or to the spiritual and eternal blessings of the kingdom of Christ."

In part contemporaneous with Dr. Hodge, and of the same general school of theology-namely, the Calvinistic school-is Dr. Shedd, who has also written on the Epistle to the Romans. He regards the word "loved" in the text as denoting "compassion," not "approval" or "complacency;" and the word "hate," as here used in the Hebrew sense of "loving less," or "showing less favor toward." Dr. Shedd quotes Calvin thus: "I chose one and rejected the other; and I was thus led by mercy alone, and by no worthiness as to works.” Dr. Shedd then adds: "This showing of compassion, refraining from showing it, relates primarily to the birthright and its privileges, to the 63-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. XV.

theocratic election and reprobation. But as Jacob and Esau were typical persons, the same definition of the terms 'love' and 'hate' applies to the spiritual election and reprobation of individuals in the two classes represented by them." While this language is somewhat vague, it is clear that Shedd regards the passage as including the personal election and reprobation of these individuals without any foresight or consideration of their works. Beet, an Arminian exegete, also says on the verse: "The interpretation of 'hated,'' to love less,'' to regard with less favor," is completely overthrown by Mal. i, 4. Human passions are attributed to God, to teach that he acts as men do when influenced by such passions. . . . Therefore, looking back on the words to Rebecca, Paul is justified in saying that God spoke to them in order to declare the great principle that the blessings by the covenant are given without consideration of human conduct."

We may not close these extracts from well-known commentaries without including two modern scholars of the Church of England, namely, the late Dr. Liddon and Dr. Sanday. Dr. Liddon says: "The passage occurs in Malachi's opening reproach to Israel for ingratitude, Mal. i, 2, 3. . . . Thus, that Israel had been exalted and Edom destroyed was a practical illustration in history of this nyáŋoɑ and iμionoɑ. But, in the apostle's sense, the aorists are to be referred, not to God's practical dealings with the nations in history, but to the divine półɛσts which preceded the birth of the brothers. Yet, as Petavius observes, the saying of Malachi does not touch upon the eternal weal or loss of the two brothers, but only on their typical relationship to the Tayyɛhia. It seems otherwise with Isaac and Ishmael." Dr. Liddon further remarks that the word "hate" may be used in the privative sense of "not to love or "to love less." He writes: "The word has been taken to describe conduct which would imply in man arbitrary hatred. Since God is love, 'he hateth nothing that he has made;' but he acts sometimes toward men as men would act, they think, if they felt hatred. To hate thus describes not an emotion in God, but an effect of an emotion anthropomorphically attributed to him."

B

We may well note also the remark of Dr. Sanday, "The words are simply directed against the assumption of human merit." He quotes with approval from Gore: "The absolute election of Jacobthe 'loving' of Jacob and the hating' of Esau--has reference simply to the election of one to higher privileges as the head of the chosen race than the other. It has nothing to do with their eternal salvation. In the original to which St. Paul is referring, Esau is simply a synonym for Edom." " Further, as to these words, "loved" and "hated," he says: "There is no need to soften these words as some have attempted, translating 'loved more' and 'loved less.' They simply express what had been a matter of fact and was always looked upon by the Jews as God's attitude toward the two nations." We thus place in close connection some of the comments which have been made by

exegetical scholars on the difficult passage alluded to at the head of this paper, namely, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

There is one commentator who, in the judgment of the writer, has grasped the thought of the apostle with great acuteness, and that is Dr. Whedon. His treatment of the whole section-chapters ix to xiis well worthy of careful study. A quotation will unfold to us his point of view. His comment is at once concise and clear. On chapter ix, verse 10, he says: "Why was Jacob preferred above Esau ? Not because of purer blood, for they were both born of the same pure-blooded parents. . . . It was not because of merit works, for the preference was announced before their birth. It was not from primogeniture, for Esau was the elder of the two. And the argument thus far, if it does not prove the election to have been in view of faith, proves that it could have been for no other known reason. As between the two alternatives, faith and works, held up in all these parts of this epistle, it could not have been for the latter, and so must have been for the former. Jacob and Esau are opposite members, in the two great lines above given, of faith versus unbelief." When Whedon comes to the thirteenth verse he says: "The strong word 'hated' needs no softening, as appears from the proof given of the hatred, namely, the positive devastation of his 'heritage' (Mal. i, 3). The meaning ascribed by some commentators to the word, to love less,' is hardly sustainable. Edom as a prospective people was foreseen as persistently godless, and so divinely hated. . . . All this implies not that the evil of the Edomites or of Esau was decreed or necessitated, or that it secured the personal damnation of Esau or of any particular Edomite. Esau may have been saved; salvation was in reach of every Edomite."

A study of these passages will show some striking differences. We have first the meaning of the words "love" and "hate." It is indicated by one class that they are employed in a relative and not in an absolute sense. It is a strong putting of God's preference of one over the other. He loved Esau less than Jacob, but there was involved no hatred of Esau. The other is that these words express God's approval of the one and his displeasure against the other. None of them regard God's attitude toward either as involving what we might designate as malignant hatred. The Revised Version expresses the meaning better than the King James. The former reads, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." This passage is a quotation from Malachi, which in the Revised Version reads thus: "I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us! Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob; but Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness." The context shows that Esau was hated for cause, and that these desolations came upon a people who had merited the divine displeasure. The fact that Jacob was Esau's brother did not prevent God's love of Jacob. He does not hold one brother responsible for another brother's sins.