marry heathen captives, not Canaanites; and that he has been led into error by overlooking or confounding this distinction. Furthermore, it appears from the book of Ruth, i. 4, 15, that Naomi's sons "took them wives of the women of Moab," not as captives or slaves, nor yet on condition of for ever renouncing their gods, or as Hebrew proselytes. An Israelite, as Michaelis observes, might certainly marry a heathen woman, provided he did not allow her, for the time being, to practise her idolatries. So common a book as Jahn's Biblical Archæology, should have set Mr. Malcom right on this subject, which says: "Intermarriages, moreover, were prohibited with the Canaanites, for fear that the Hebrews should be seduced to idolatry. The law was extended by Ezra and Nehemiah to intermarriages with all foreigners, on the ground, that there was as much danger of contamination from other nations in their time, as there was from the Canaanites anciently." Besides, Mr. Malcom should remember, that if, as he intimates, "the reason " of the law which forbade intermarriages between the Israelites and Canaanites is in "full force in relation to intermarriages between believers. and unbelievers at the present day, that reason goes to the extent of interdicting not only intercourse by marriage, but all other intercourse. "Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them."

Indeed, the general points of difference in the two cases here brought into view, are so obvious, that we wonder greatly how a thinker and writer of Mr. Malcom's reputation could so far overlook them, as to suppose it logical and just to reason, as he does, from one to the other. Take it for granted, that the Hebrews were forbidden to intermarry with the subjects of other governments, and the devotees of hostile and debasing superstitions, that thus the fundamental policy of the Mosaic institutions, in keeping up a partition-wall between Jew and Gentile, might be realized more effectually. Does it follow, under totally dissimilar circumstances, that real and merely nominal Christians, being members of the same community, and perhaps of the same religious soci

*Jahn's Biblical Archæology, § 152. See also Michaelis on the Laws of Moses, Vol. II. p. 37.

ety or congregation, are not at liberty to intermarry? The "reason" of the old law might apply with some force against intermarriages at the present day with polytheists and idolaters, or with avowed and contentious deists or atheists; but from the steps which Mr. Malcom has taken, and from the language he uses, it is plain, that these constitute but a small portion of the "unbelievers," to whom his "Christian rule of marriage" is meant to be applied. He includes among unbelievers, all such as are not, in his opinion, real believers; that is, all merely nominal Christians, though members of the same community, and of the same congregation. Now we say, that to adduce a law in point from the Old Testament, one must be found, which forbids the intermarriage not only of Jews with foreigners and idolaters, but of real Jews with merely nominal Jews, of believing with unbelieving members of the Jewish community. Mr. Malcom will not pretend, we presume, that any such law exists, and his argument, therefore, so far as the Old Testament is concerned, fails.

We turn, next, to the authorities adduced from the New Testament, which, if possible, are still less satisfactory. The first is from Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, vi. 14-16; which, in the common version reads thus; "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or 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." On this passage Mr. Malcom comments as follows:

"There is no passage in the word of God more express and positive than this. Some, I am aware, consider it as applying primarily to the admittance of church members. But the great mass of commentators refer it to marriage. This seems to be rendered at least most probable, by the succession of interrogations, which immediately follows the prohibition."— p. 62.

If, as Mr. Malcom says, "there is no passage in the word of God more express and positive than this," it is certainly a little remarkable, that, by his own showing, some commentators refer it" to the admittance of church-members," and others "to marriage," and that we are left to determine

which interpretation is "at least most probable," not by the very terms of the prohibition, but "by the succession of interrogations which immediately follows" it. We are also curious to know what commentators Mr. Malcom is in the habit of consulting, and the names of some of those to whom he refers as "the great mass of commentators." Several works of this description are now lying open before us, not one of which refers the prohibition in question, "to the admittance of church-members," and only one, (Macknight, a critic of but third-rate pretensions,) "to marriage." Among the lexicographers, Schileusner, Robinson, and Bretschneider, and among the commentators, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Rosenmüller, Locke, Wakefield, Newcome, and others, make the figure, "be not unequally yoked," or "be not yoke-fellows with unbelievers," to mean, either that the early converts were not to imitate, or go along with, the pagans in their customs and institutions, or that they were not to form unsuitable connexions or intimacies with them. Mr. Malcom may think, perhaps, that this last interpretation, if well supported, would imply that they were not at liberty to contract marriages with pagans; but it is apparent from the connexion, that this was not in the Apostle's mind at the time, and that he had immediate reference to idolatrous intercourse alone, to unsuitable connexions or intimacies, not of a matrimonial, but of a religious character.*

Mr. Malcom thus concludes his learned exposition:

"Let the reader understand that the argument from this text is not intended only for those who admit its being certain that the Apostle had marriage particularly in view at the time he

Le Clerc thus paraphrases the passage in question; "Quæ potest esse causa, cur majore affectu prosequamini homines nequaquam Christianos, et fallaces doctores, quàm me?" Schleusner renders it; "Nolite societatem inire cum paganis, vobis plane imparibus, eorumque mores imitari et ita consortio, vobis indigno, uti." Referring to the same passage, under the word irsgouyiw, Bretschneider observes, "Alteram jugi partem trahere est enim tropice, eosdem mores sequi; " and accordingly he makes the Apostle say; "Nolite sequi mores, instituta eorum, qui Christo fidem denegant." Wetstein, as quoted by Mr. Dabney, says expressly, "Paul is not speaking of matrimonial alliances, but of idolatrous intercourse." So likewise, Archbishop Newcome; "Show your affectionate obedience to me in this respect: Partake not in the religious rites of heathen worshippers."

VOL. XVI. -N. S. VOL. XI. NO. IV.

8

wrote it. It cannot be evaded by any pretext. The passage must be blotted from the Bible, or those who profess and appear to be Christians, must not marry such as profess and appear not to be Christians.". p. 66.

Few things are so apt to disturb our habitual equanimity as this sort of flippancy in speaking of the Scriptures; as if we must blot or burn our Bibles, or succumb immediately to every antiquated absurdity, or upstart innovation. If, as the most eminent philologists teach, tegoguyur means, in this place, "to bear the other end of the yoke," or to go along with, or imitate, the pagans in their idolatrous rites, it obviously has nothing to do with connexions, equal or unequal, having any analogy to marriage. Or if Mr. Malcom chooses to put the prohibition to marry, on the ground that all intercourse and association between believers and unbelievers is forbidden, then, to be consistent, he must forbid their living together in the same family, their visiting familiarly in the same circle, and their doing business together. Besides, cannot Mr. Malcom distinguish between an apostolical injunction, supposing it to have been given, in regard to what in the existing circumstances was obviously expedient, and a positive. law of perpetual obligation?

The second passage of Scripture adduced in support of the new "rule of marriage," is the following: "The wife is bound by the law, as long as her husband liveth; but, if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." 1 Cor. vii. 39. On this passage Mr. Malcom expresses himself, as usual, in a little too much of "that spirit of dictation," of which, he tells us in his Preface," he is conscious of being utterly destitute."

"The import of the expression," he says, "cannot be misunderstood, even by a negligent reader. A person who is in the Lord,' or 'in Christ Jesus,' is a person who belongs to the church of Christ, or a religious person. Mc Knight's rendering of our text is, 'only he must be a Christian,' and no writer offers a contrary interpretation."

Our author's acquaintance with Scripture, and Scriptural interpretation, is not such as to warrant him in the indulgence of such sweeping remarks. Le Clerc, Locke, and many others we doubt not, do offer, "a contrary interpretation"; making the widow's marrying "in the Lord" to refer to the

principles on which she is to marry, and not to the religious connexions or character of her intended husband.* Granting, however, that the interpretation of the Apostle's words given above is the true interpretation, it becomes us to inquire under what circumstances, and for what purpose they were written, and whether they must be considered as obligatory on "widows" at the present day. They occur in that part of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which Paul answers at length certain questions which they had sent to him respecting the propriety and expediency of marriage. After admitting the lawfulness of marriage in general, and charging those who were married not to separate, of their own accord, though married to unbelievers, he thus introduces his advice to young unmarried persons: "Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose, therefore, that this is good for the present distress." 1 Cor. vii. 25, 26. He then urges, for reasons which he assigns, that, other things permitting, it would be better for the young converts, "in the present distress" to remain single, and concludes with giving the following advice, having special reference to "widows." "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment; and I think also that I have the spirit of God." vv. 39, 40. Now we presume, that two persons are not to be found, whatever may be their prejudices and prepossessions, who can sit down and read through this whole chapter in connexion, without perceiving that the Apostle intended to be understood as giving advice, "after his judgment," and not as laying down a law on divine authority, and that the advice was not intended to be of universal and perpetual application, but had immediate and sole reference to "the present distress." Yet what says Mr. Malcom?

"Here then is a plain and positive rule. What shall be done with it? The will of heaven is distinctly revealed. Shall it be obeyed or disobeyed? Will we submit to the New Testament or hide our face from its import? Let every one give to

* For a similar use of the phrase zugi see Rom. xvi, 12, 1 Cor. i. 31. Ephes. iv. 1. Phil. iii. 1. Rev. xiv. 13.