ing and casting its ample shield about them, quite satisfied, and replied in the fulness of in their sleeping and waking, in their eating his heart, that 'truly the same thought had and drinking, in their public walks, and in occurred to himself.-He had even ventured the darkest retreats of the family mansion. to give a delicate hint on the subject to Mrs. Abolish this law; expel this household god; M. herself, who did not appear to take it veLet the parties only understand that after ry unkindly; and on the whole she might the death of the present wife they may marrest assured that her wish would be complied ry; what will follow? Why, I will tell you, with. Madam was not quite prepared for sir, what will follow. We shall hear by this proof of affection. She darted at him a and by, tales that will make our ears to tin-glance which would not have discredited a tigle. We shall hear from this part of the ger, and replied, after a considerable pause, country, and from that part, and a third 'Well, sir, you do marry that creature, part, of the dreadful misfortune that hap-will rise from my grave to curse you!' This pened in such a family. We shall hear of a story needs no comment. Can any one helovely and accomplished girl rushing as she sitate a moment to acknowledge, that it is thought to an asylum opened to her by Hea- from having experienced the benefit of the ven itself; and finding, but too late, that she law of incest during their whole matrimonial had fallen into the clutches of a demon. We life, that women who make these requests shall hear of a wife dying of a broken heart, are so anxious on their death bed to break her children weeping about her bed, not it? They are women, not philosophers; this well knowing what has taken place, yet is our excuse for them; otherwise they feeling that some desolating whirlwind has would not sit under the shade, and enjoy come over them! the fruits of a venerable old tree, for ten, twenty, or thirty years, and show their gratitude on a death bed, by solemnly adjuring their husbands to cut it down. I am bold to say, that when it becomes fashionable for men to marry their sisters-in-law, husbands will cease to be troubled with the dying requests of wives on this subject. "Few cases of this kind, I acknowledge, have occurred hitherto, though some have.* But let us not be lulled into a false security. The reason of their infrequency is not the general virtue of the community, but the existence of that wholesome feeling we have lately adverted to, which has been the fruit of our forefathers' institutions, and which some well meaning, but I do not think far seeing people are attempting to destroy.These would be the first consequences of the measure, &c. to "Before concluding, it may be proper consider some of the arguments usually advanced by the friends of such matrimonial connexions. There are only two, which, in my opinion, deserve a moment's attention. 1st. It is said that no express prohibition of them is found in the Levitical law. 2d. If we declare them 'Incest,' we must excom "I have sometimes heard it alledged as an argument for such marriages, that women have been known, who earnestly recommended a sister to their husbands, inmunicate, without giving any hope of restothe event of their death. ration to the Church, until the parties sepa "With respect to the first assertion, that no express prohibition of them is found in Leviticus, the fact is granted. A woman is "In reply, I will ask a single question.-rate. Would the dying wife have made the request, if she had known that, for the last two or three years, her husband and sister had been deliberating on the subject them-positively debarred from marrying two broselves? Perhaps it may be sufficiently answered by the following little anecdote:A lady in the State of New-York, finding herself near her end, called her husband to her bedside, and with great solemnity recommended a widowed sister, who had been attending her in the capacity of a nurse, as his future wife. The dear man appeared thers, except in a peculiar case,* where the law of incest gives way to the law regulating property; but it is not said in so many words that a man may not marry two sisters. If, however, the letter be not in Leviticus, the spirit is there, and with this I am perfectly satisfied. I ask myself, what is the reason of the prohibitions that law actually contains, e. g. of the marriage of brother and Four are known to the writer, three of sister, aunt and Nephew, mother-in-law and which are in their details too harrowing even son-in-law? I discover it; and I find it to for tragedy. The evil, though not so great apply against the marriage in controversy as it will be when marriages of this kind with appalling force. My conclusion is, shall be universally approved, is probably that it is as really part of the will of Godgreater than most imagine. Let it be re- of the divine institution, as those which are membered, 1st. That it is often not disco-more clearly expressed. Why should we vered. And, 2d. That from the peculiar nature of the crime, they who are in a situation favourable to its detection, and who detect it actually, are most anxious for its concealment. * The Levirate law, which requires the widow of one who died without issue, to marry his brother or nearest male relative.Deut. xxv. 5, 6. sistory, who meantime will watch over their walk play the part of quibbling, word-catching | restored at the discretion of the Session or Conattornies, when the genius and spirit of a law flashes in our face! and conversation." We take leave of our author's "Letter," by recommending it to the careful perusal of all our brethren to whom the subject is interesting, repeating our regrets that the chasteness either of style or sentiment does not correspond with the singular ability of the performance, and heartily joining with the author in the "hope, that the various authorities of the Church will support the good old regulations of our forefathers, and show that if there be a spirit abroad, delighting in inno "Of the omission of this prohibition by the inspired lawgiver, and the omission of some others, (for I by no means think it the only one) a very obvious explanation can be given. Let us call to mind the retired habits of Eastern women. They seldom came in contact with males, except their nearest blood relations. Any deficiency in the law of incest was more than made up by bolts and bars, and long_veils covering the body round and round, But how different is the state of things with us, blessed be God! Our women breathe the air of liberty. They mingle with us morning, noon, and night. They share not only in our amusements, but in many of our serious occupations. In regard to the second objection-I acknow-vations; and in this rage for improveledge there seems to be a practical difficulty in soment, sparing not the most sacred and tempering our penalties, as not to relax the law on the one hand, nor oppress the ignorant, well- accredited institutions, this spirit has meaning transgressor of it on the other. But not obtained the mastery within their the difficulty of executing a statute is no reason walls. Above all, that they will not for abrogating it, when the statute is really just and proper. If it were so, he was a wise youth, tamper with foundation stones of the who, finding the operation of combing his hair social fabric,-nor cut away what cansomewhat disagreeable, cut o his hair. I do not, think however, the difficulty so great as has not be injurious, and is certainly safe. been imagined. It is evident that there is a Such we think is the prohibition of marked distinction between different kinds of in- marriage between a husband and his cest, in turpitude and moral depravity. deceased wife's sister.-It may do good.-It cannot do harm.-It has done good.-It did good before we were born-It is doing good now and we hope will be spared to do good, when we are no mor e." "1st. Some, like the marriage of parents and children, are not to be tolerated one moment, they would tear up society from its foundations. The ancients did not call these incest, but nefas, as if they were the very personification of crime. 2d. There are others, not quite so destructive, but still deadly. "The 3d class consists of those, which, in the opinion of considerate men, plainly come under the reason of the law, but the mischiefs of which are more remote and indeterminate. "With regard to the first,-such marriages are not only null and void, but the parties should be cut off from society along with the murderer and traitor, for they are both. "Those of the second kind should also be declared void, and the parties should be subjected to moderate civil pains, besides excommunication from the Church. "As to the third-Let the marriages stand, and a hope be given of restoration in due time to evangelical privileges. Yet let something be done to preserve a right feeling in the public mind. The English law provides in such cases, that though the parties may live together, they shall have no power to make a will, or leave their estates to their children. Let a similar course be taken by the Church. You need not For ourselves, we are not prepared to surrender the direct argument from the inspired law-At present, however, we have not room to discuss it. The divine statute itself apart from all regard to its reason, in our apprehension, embraces the very case in controversy. Without adverting to the construction which never has been shown to be forced or unfair, that where marriage is expressly forbidden on the one side the prohibition on the other side is implied-i.e. that when in Lev. xviii. 16. the connexion of a woman with two brothers is expressly forbidden, a like prohibition of the connexion of a man with two sisters is implied. We remark, that the crime of incest may exist, for it is recognized in the New Tes require them to separate, for it does not necessarily follow that the prohibition of an act renders that act null when done. On the contrary, it is a sound maxim, and often applied even in Church courts, "Quod non fieri debet, valet factum." Nor need you issue an excommunication. Let them be separated from the Church for a limited term, or let them be suspended indefinitely, and tament. The law, of which this crime is a violation, is one of divine authori- labour did not embrace you, do we overrate ourselves as to our labours; for even unto you have we come in our preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Verse 15.-Not glorying of our labours in those places which are without our sphere of labour, and wherein another man hath laboured; but hoping, that by the increase of your faith our sphere of labour shall be 'greatly enlarged. enactment or not. Under this gen-Verse 16.-So that we shall preach the gos pel in the regions beyond you, and not glory of our labours in another man's sphere of labour, in regard to those places which were already evangelized." The difficulty of this passage, and the variety of interpretations which have been given of it, arises from the phrase "μεтρOY TOU kavovos," which is translated, in our version, rendered it differently, or rather have given a definite rendering to the phrase which the English translation leaves indefinite, it is proper that we should show its probable "the measure of the rule." Since we have correctness. eral statute are many specifications; and almost every one of them coupled with the reason of relationship. But surely, not every case which the statute embraces is expressly specified, or, connexion between a man and his own daughter is lawful, for it is not expressly forbidden in so many words! But, among the specifications given in illustration of the general statute expressly forbidding an "approach to any that is near of kin," are relationships as remote, and even more remote 1. From the use of the word "kavw" than that of a wife's sister e. g. Lev. in other authors, we infer such to be its xviii. 14 the father's brother's wife- meaning in this passage. "Kavov," says and v. 17. the grand-step-daughter. Grotius, "is the measure by which surveyors laid out land." "Kavov," says Pollux, in Let every candid expositor then dehis Onomasticon III. 151, "is the space cide whether a law in the form in measured out for running or leaping." This which this is found evidently not ex- author lived in the beginning of the second pressly specifying every thing that it century, and his definition of the word shows us the meaning which was at that time atembraces, ought not to be extended tached to it. In the Isthmian games, which alike to the most distant relation men- were celebrated near Corinth, this space was tioned in its specifications and to marked by white lines. Now, is it at all imevery intermediate grade? If this is probable that the Apostle Paul, in writing to granted, we care not whether kindred the Corinthians, should use this word to designate the bounds within which he was to is regarded as a mere sign of danger-run or preach? "I therefore so run," says ous intimacy or as the foundation of he," 1 Cor. ix. 26, "not as uncertainly." the law.*-K. A TRANSLATION OF 2 CORINTHIANS x. 13, 14, 15, 16. II. From the connexion in which this word is used, we may learn that such is its meaning in this passage. In the latter part of the 15th verse, it stands thus connected: "Hoping that by the increase of your faith, we shall be enlarged, as to our kavov rule, abundantly." But in what did this enlargement of his rule consist? The 16th verse Verse 13.-"But we will not glory of our informs us: "So that we shall preach the labours in those places which are without gospel in the regions beyond you." The our sphere of labour; but we will glory in enlargement then of his rule was a greater the sphere of labour which God has as-sphere of labour, and consisted in preaching signed us, which extends even unto you. the gospel more extensively. In the latter part of this verse, (16th) the Apostle speaks Verse 14.-For, not as if the sphere of our of "glorying in another man's xavw, with regard to those places which were already evangelized." If he does not mean the sphere of labour, what can he mean by the word? ✦ We understand that a second edition of this Letter is already in the press of Messrs G. & C. Carvill, New. York. The xavov then of the Apostle was, the places where he had preached, or the Churches he had planted. It is true, that the Apostles were commanded by the Saviour, to preach the gospel to every creature, but it was not the duty of each individual Apostle to preach in every part of the world.Paul was sent to the Gentiles, Peter to the Jews. Nor was it Paul's duty to preach to all the gentiles at any one time, but to preach at different places, at different times. His kavwv then, as to its extent, during his life time, varied. Hence he says that it included the Corinthians, because he had come to them in preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, and expresses the hope that by the increase of their faith, it would be greatly enlarged. "But this sphere of labour, this kavov," says the Apostle, "God has assigned to us." He had done so, not only by giving him extraordinary communications of his spirit thus enabling him to form a more correct judgment as to the places where it was his duty at any one time to preach, than he otherwise could have done--but he did so, by directing him immediately by his spirit, where he ought to preach, and preventing him, where he otherwise would have gone, from going where he should not. See Acts xvi. 6, 10. xviii. 9, 10. passim in his Epistles. The design of the Apostle in these verses is to contrast his own conduct with that of the false teachers. He had not intermeddled, nor did he glory in the sphere of labour of any other man. They had done boththey had preached in the Churches he had planted. He had laboured, and they had entered upon his labours. Whose conduct, then, was the most honourable? Which the most worthy of their affection and regard? L. VAN D Rutgers College, 1826. ! A CORRECTION. In our last number, in a mild and brotherly review, which, by way of defence, we offered our readers, of Dr. Hobart's political sermon; at page 278 we said, "While the Bishop-meaning Dr. Hobart is engaged in exposing the Church of England, still his dread of Presbyterians-among whom he was reared, by whom he was at first licensed to preach, and against whom," &c. In our manuscript, we had set it down thus-"By whom, we understand, he was at first licensed" &c. But this little, and very important phrase, "we understand," happened to fall out between the Editor and the Printer's fingers, and hence much mischief! A small scrap of paper, at present lying on our table, in the autograph of Dr. H, says "this is untrue! Bishop Hobart's parents were both Episcopalians, and he was never any other; pursuing his studies, even while at Princeton College, under Bishop White." The Editor, as in duty bound, here express es his regret that this sorry assertion escaped him.And he declares, that the 'Association' hereby publickly admit the correction, and cause it to be recorded accordingly; and they verily believe it, as it is given under the Bishop's own hand, that he never was a Presbyterian, nor ever was infected with their belief, far less was he ever their licentiate. In searching into the matter, however-and really we were not, at the time, aware of the dreadful nature of the imputation of Presbyterianism,' made by us upon Bishop Hobart-we really did not at the time apprehend it to be so very serious or dreadful a charge, to have been Dr. Smith's pupil, and to have been licensed to preach the gospel by the Presbytery of New-Brunswick, which at that time embraced in its hallowed circle some of the brightest names in the roll of our theological and literary fame-the brightest and most pious men perhaps who have flourished in the U. States. But then, sit fas audita loqui, they were-heu nefas! they were Presbyterians! And though not being exactly such ourselves we had not put ourselves into Dr. H.'s thinking position, and realized his feelings towards the sect called Presbyterians! Well, in searching into the matter seriously, we find that the thing which we did understand is not so wide off the mark after all. The rumour that Dr. H. had been a licentiate of the Presbyterian Church, heu nefas! how awful the idea!.....has arisen from these following circumstances, which, with our usual frankness, we lay before our numerous readers. Dr. H. was a pupil of Dr. President Smith. Dr. H. studied Presbyterian theology with him, and he taught Dr. H. Presbyterian theology. And then, in a certain great excitement, or a revival in that village, and in the vicinity, Dr. H. and his friend, the late Dr. Finlay, of Basking Ridge, and latterly President of Georgia University, (from whose family we have it, and it can be easily proved if any one takes it into his head to deny it ;) Dr. Hobart took an active part in the pious and devout extemporaneous addresses or exhortations, or small preaching, in which the students then and even now are accustomed to engage. Yes, sit fas loqui, Dr. H. prayed very devoutly extemporaneously; and exhorted or spoke or preached, (as the common people call it) extemporaneously, by the side of his friend, Dr. Finlay, in certain school-houses or places of meeting. The Bishop, it is true, does believe differently now, and has lately called all this kind of thing fanaticism. And in his Conventional Address (p. 357 of the September number of the Christian Journal) he calls it 'religious fanaticism.' But the good honest people who fructified then under the Bishop's extemporaneous prayers, and his extemporaneous impassioned short addresses or little sermons, as they will still call them, have been witnesses of his belief in the contrary. And the writer of this has heard the members of the late Dr. Finlay's family speak of Dr. H. and his pious ef forts to promote these revivals, and the confident belief of some, that as his converts, they expect to meet the good man in Heaven. Now, we leave it with our readers to judge, whether it was not quite natural for charitable thinking people, who loved good order, and believed that no young divine could or would officiate in public without a license, to believe and to say that Mr. Hobart was a licentiate of the Presbytery !Yes, said they, he must he licensed, for he is an orderly, pious, devout, extemporaneous, praying young man, and makes us fine discourses; therefore he must surely be licensed to preach, for can any man thus preach or exhort without licence? By these good honest people we were, it seems, misled, and have thus committed the sin of calling Dr. H. in early life, a Presbyterian licentiate. But now, on the strength of his own certificate, we utterly deny that he was a licentiate when he thus officiated in these devout exhibitions! Religious Entelligence. Whatever difference of opinion there ary societies are associated have their may be among professing Christians warrant in the word of God. They berespecting the constitution of mission-lieve that the church of God in her Ecary societies, and the principles upon clesiastical capacity, is the only rightwhich they proceed in sending the gos-ly constituted missionary society, and pel to the dark places of the earth, we that to her in this capacity every are sure that every true Christian will missionary sent forth, ought to be unite in hailing with feelings of the amenable, and to be under her authosincerest joy every well authenticated rity and direction. account of the success of the gospel, sent by their instrumentality, in turning sinners to the Saviour, and in spreading abroad the glory of his salvation. There is joy in heaven at the conversion of a sinner; surely it is not wrong for saints on earth to be partakers of their joy. When the object aimed at is good, it is lawful to rejoice in the attainment of this good, though the means used for accomplishing it, may, in many points, be such as we cannot conscientiously approve. The Apostle rejoiced in that Christ was preached," though in some instances from the most improper motives; and all such as possess the spirit of the Apostle will with him rejoice, in that Christ is preached, and in that a heathen is saved, by whatever means this may be brought about. We know that there are many who fervently pray for the extension of the Redeemer's kingdom, and whose exertions and contributions are liberally bestowed for this end, when they can be bestowed in a way that they approve, but who cannot believe that the principles on which some mission On this principle several efficient missionary societies are constituted, and we ourselves cannot but think, that it is the most consistent and unexceptionable. A missionary society on any other plan, possesses no ecclesiastical character, has no ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and its missionaries are under no ecclesiastical controul. Nevertheless, whatever good even such societies have been instrumental in doing, and they have been honoured to do much will be to us a source of unfeigned satisfaction; and that our readers may rejoice with us, we shall endeavour to lay before them, in as short space as possible, some of the great things which God has done towards the accomplishment of his promise, to give the heathen to his Son "for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession." We have no doubt, but that one great reason why people do not take more interest than they do, in missionary efforts and intelligence, is the want of correct information about the history and state of missions in different pla |