and trial, all which she met and surmounted with an uncommon degree of Christian fortitude and courage, her mind being generally richly supported by the glorious doctrines of the grace of God. She was the mother of a numerous family of children, all of whom, except three, we trust, preceded her to glory, most of them dying in their infancy. For several months past Mrs. Brooks appeared to be rapidly sinking under that flattering but generally fatal complaint, pulmonary consumption, which at length brought her body to the grave. But death to our friend had no terrors, Christ having taken away the sting. Not a doubt was permitted to trouble her mind. A short time before her departure, when taking leave of a dear friend, she pressed his hand, and with a smiling countenance and confident tone of voice said, "All is well." As her end drew near, her weakness and bodily suffering increased, and conversation was to her extremely difficult and painful, her cough being very distressing. At length the hour of dissolution arrived, and at her request prayer was twice offered to the divine throne by her weeping partner. After which she said, "My dear, you did not ask the Lord Jesus to receive my spirit." On his inquiring if it was her desire that he should, she instantly assented; when he had so done, she immediately repeated the words after him, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit ;" and her happy spirit was shortly released from its clay tenement, and took its flight to the regions of everlasting life and glory. The mournful event was improved on sabbath evening, July 8th, by Rev. J. Phillips of Southwell in an impressive and faithful discourse from Eccles. xii. 1-7, a passage chosen by our deceased friend for the occasion. MR. MARK MOORE. Died, August 13th, Mr. Mark Moore of Queen Street Place, Southwark Bridge, many years a deacon of the church meeting in New Park Street. Mr. Moore's health had been failing for some months, but his removal was eventually occasioned by a sudden attack of the prevailing epidemic. MISCELLANEA. IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE COURT OF The evangelical clergy of the established church have received a heavy and portentous blow. Did not the history of mankind teach that men of general integrity sometimes sacrifice their own consistency and professions rather than part with worldly dignities and emoluments, and that when the day of trial comes they often act in a manner which they had previously thought impossible, we should suppose that a large secession must now take place. It has been solemnly declared by the highest ecclesiastical authority, that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is the doctrine of the church of England. This we dissenters have always said, and this the tractarians say; but this the evangelical adherents of the episcopal church have been accustomed to deny. Now, however, it is determined by the president of the Court of Arches, sitting on his judgment-seat, after listening patiently to the arguments of eminent counsel on both sides, that if a man do not believe the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, it is a sufficient reason why he should not hold office as a minister of the English establishment. The case which has occasioned the decision is this. Mr. Gorham, a highly respectable clergyman in Devonshire, having discharged the duties of his ministry more than thirty years, was presented by the Lord Chancellor with a vicarage in the same county nearly two years ago, both livings being in the diocese of Exeter, and in the patronage of the crown. The bishop, however, refused to admit him, though so long a minister in his own diocese, without a previous examination. That examination was commenced on the 17th of December, 1847; it was continued on the 18th, 21st, and 22nd days of the same month; and after an interruption of some length it was renewed on the 18th of March, 1848, continued on the 9th, and finally terminated on the 10th. On that day Mr. Gorham was informed that the bishop declined to institute him. Thus the matter rested till June, 1848, when a monition was issued from the Court of Arches, at the suit of Mr. Gorham, calling upon the bishop to institute him within a certain time specified into the vicarage of Bampton Speke, or to show cause why he should not be so instituted. To this the bishop pleaded, that in the course of the examination which he had thought it right to institute, Mr. Gorham had advanced some unsound doctrine respecting that great and fundamental point, the efficacy and persisted in holding that spiritual regeneof the rite of baptism, inasmuch as he held ration was not given or confirmed in that holy sacrament, and that particularly therein infants are not made members of Christ and children of God. The bishop went on to state that this was contrary to the plain teaching of the church of England in her articles and liturgy, and especially contrary to the office of confirmation and the catechism, contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and that upon that account he refused to institute Mr. Gorham to the said vicarage. This case having been brought before the supreme ecclesiastical court, the Court of Arches, and the discussion of it of that part of the question so far as the court was concerned. Now he was not aware that it was necessary for the court to occupy much more time upon the question which had arisen here. The point to be ascertained was, was the doctrine of the church of England that of the baptismal regeneration of infants or not. Another point to be determined was, did Mr. Gorham deny it was? He (the learned judge) said it was clear from the passages he had read, and from the whole tenor of the examination, and of the learned counsel's argument upon it, that he did oppose this article of baptismal regeneration. Children presented no obstacle, and received the benefit of baptismal regeneration, whatever it might be. It was a spiritual regeneration according to the words of the formularies of the church, and, therefore, if this was the doctrine of the church of England, which undoubtedly it was declared to be, that children baptized were regenerated and saved if they died without committing actual sin, then Mr. Gorham had maintained doctrines which were opposed to the doctrines of the church. And then the question was, had the bishop shown sufficient reason for not instituting Mr. Gorham to the benefice. Now, he was of opinion that Mr. Gorham had maintained a doctrine that was opposed to the doctrines of the church of England; that the bishop had shown sufficient cause why he had not instituted Mr. Gorham to the benefice; and that, therefore, the bishop must be dismissed, and dismissed with costs. having occupied six days, the judge, Sir Her- | individuals. This would, therefore, dispose bert Jenner Fust, on the 2nd of August pronounced sentence. In the course of an elaborate address, the reading of which occupied four hours, he observed that the question between the parties was as to the efficacy of baptismal regeneration in the case of infants only. He dismissed from consideration altogether the question of the regeneration of adults by baptism, it being admitted on the part of the bishop, that in the case of adults the efficacy of baptism depended on the faith and repentance of the parties baptized, and on the sincerity of their professions and promises. Nor was he called upon to pronounce an opinion whether the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in the case of infants was or was not a clearly Christian doctrine. It was not within the province of the court to institute an inquiry of that sort; all the court was called upon to do was to endeavour to ascertain whether the church had determined anything on the subject, and having done so to pronounce its decision accordingly. The court was bound to administer the law as it found it laid down, and not to give any opinion as to what the law ought to be; and, therefore, he was most anxious that it should be perfectly understood that in the observations he was about to make he should confine himself wholly to the doctrines of the church so far as he was capable of ascertaining them, without any intention to extend them to scriptural interpretation. The first of the 149 questions which the bishop had put to Mr. Gorham was, "Prove from scripture that baptism and the supper of the Lord are severally necessary to salvation-first, of baptism; secondly, of the Lord's supper." Now, said the judge, here it was evident that the bishop had not put the question in a form that would draw out a specific answer as to the doctrine of the church upon the necessity of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper. Gorham was perfectly well aware of the slip which the bishop had made, and his counsel took advantage of that slip to show that his On Wednesday, August 15th, a large and lordship was wrong, and that he was obliged deeply interesting tea meeting was held in to correct his error in the next question. To Mr. Hank's barn in the above village, for the this question, however, Mr. Gorham answer- purpose of raising funds to erect a new place ed, and truly answered, "I do not find in of worship for the use of the baptist church scripture that the necessity of baptism to sal- and congregation there assembling. In convation is declared in terms so absolute as this sequence of the increased attendance upon proposition." The learned judge then went the means of grace, it has become necessary into the details of the examination, and of to "arise and build," the present chapel being the articles and services of the church in far too small to afford the requisite accomreference to the subject, maintaining that as modation. On the evening already mentionlong as these were reconcileable, and noted, about 260 persons took tea together, after only reconcileable, but necessarily consistent with the general and literal interpretation of the words, they were not at liberty to put any new interpretation upon them. They must take those doctrines and expressions in their true and literal sense, and not construe them by resorting to the private opinions of Mr. An appeal has been made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; but the Record, which professes to speak the senti ments of the evangelical clergy, says, “It is difficult, we think, to over estimate the importance of this case in its essential nature, or in its probable or possible consequences." NAUNTON, NEAR STOW-ON-THE-WOLD, GLOUCESTERSHIRE. which a public meeting in furtherance of this good object was convened. After singing and prayer, Mr. Comely of Notgrove, the deacon of the church and the treasurer to the fund, was called to the chair, when the pas tor of the church, the Rev. J. Teall, stated, that the estimated cost of the proposed erec tion would be about £400, one half of which sum was immediately promised by a few of the Naunton friends themselves. The meeting was afterwards addressed by the Rev. J. Acock of Stow, who for upwards of twenty years sustained the office of pastor of the church, and also by Rev. Messrs. Dunn of Winchcomb, Hall of Arlington, Statham of Bourton-on-the-Water, Cherry of Milton, and Amery of Campden, and all present had reason to acknowledge, "It is good to be here." It is hoped that such pecuniary assistance will be rendered by the denomination generally as to justify the commencement of the building as early as possible in the ensuing spring, inasmuch as the object has been long in contemplation, and a house and garden were purchased and paid for by the Naunton friends upwards of six years since, as a site upon which to raise the intended erection. COLLECTANEA. EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. In consequence of the failure of the funds expected from some of the divisions of the organization, the Rev. W. Bevan has felt it to be his duty to resign the office of secretary. Two meetings of the Committee of Council were convened to consider the measures necessary to be adopted in consequence of his determination, on the 26th and 29th of June. At the latter it was resolved to convene a special meeting of the Council for the 6th of July. The Rev. John Jordan presided (Sir Culling E. Eardley being unwell). The chairman read Psalm xlvi., the Rev. Dr. Hamilton offered prayer, the Rev. W. Bevan stated the reasons which had influenced him in resigning his office, whereupon it was resolved : "I. That the Rev. W. Bevan having resigned his office as Secretary to the British Organization of the Evangelical Alliance, such resignation to take effect from the 1st of August next, this Council cannot part with their much beloved brother as their for his faithful discharge of the duties of his office, Secretary without expressing their gratitude to him and his valuable services therein, and also its best wishes for his future happiness and usefulness. "II. That the Revs. Dr. Steane, Edward Craig, and J. P. Dobson, be affectionately requested gratuitously to undertake the duties of the official secretariat, from the 1st of August to the time of the third Annual Conference." The Rev. Dr. Cox was added to the Board of Advice. After prayer by Dr. Cox, the Council adjourned. Communications on the business of the Alliance are, in future, to be addressed to the Rev. Dr. Steane, 7, Adam Street, Strand, London.-Evangelical Christendom. CORRESPONDENCE. MARRIAGE WITH A SISTER OF A DECEASED many other thoughtful and conscientious WIFE. To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. DEAR SIR,-In your Magazine for the present month are some rather decided observations, in the review department, on the desirableness of repealing the law which prohibits marriage with the sister of a deceased wife. I beg permission to say a few words to your readers on this subject. The Commission of Inquiry, it appears, has ascertained the fact, which no one can question, that such connexions, under the form of marriage, or without it, do exist to a considerable extent. From this fact the Reviewer thinks it very expedient and desirable that the prohibition should be removed, and that such marriages should be sanctioned by law. It is not of course lost sight of, that in morals and religion there is a higher priciple of conduct than mere expediency. With every conscientious person the first question will be "what is right? do the scriptures in any way determine this subject ?" The Reviewer, and persons profess to be satisfied that the relation in question is not within the degrees of affinity prohibited from intermarriage by the scriptures. I am not extensively acquainted with what has been written on this subject, or perhaps I should be so well informed as not to trouble you with this letter. I have read a pamphlet in favour of the connexions in question by the Rev. J. F. Denham, but all the main positions of that respectable clergyman I had seen very carefully examined, and, to my apprehension, plainly proved to be untenable, in a work which I beg to recommend to the perusal of any one interested in this subject. It is called, "The Hebrew Wife: or, the Law of Marriage Examined," &c., by S. E. Dwight. Glasgow: Gallie, 99, Buchanan Street. The writer is an American lawyer, son, I believe, of the celebrated Dr. Dwight. The British edition is edited and strongly recommended by Dr. Wardlaw, no mean judge of literary merit and biblical criticism. As I have never seen this work referred to, I fear it is but little known in this country. Within a small space the intelligent and learned writer gives a very interesting "Essay on Polygamy," in which he clearly shows that the supposition that polygamy was allowed in the patriarchal and Levitical economies is a popular error. Then, by a careful examination of the Levitical code, and of numerous other portions of scripture, he gives clear and satisfactory information on all subjects connected with this interesting controversy. In a very careful examination of Levit. xviii. 18, a verse of the greatest importance in this question, he shows by evidence amounting to demonstration, that the reading inserted in the margin of our bible is the correct import of the inspired writer. Not, "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, --beside the other in her life time," but, "Neither shalt thou take one wife to another," &c. As it stands in the text, it is a kind of permission of polygamy, but not with the sister of the first wife, because that would vex her, but with any other woman, as if that would not vex her, and you may take the sister of the first wife after her death. In this absurd and incorrect sense the passage seems to be taken by many, making it a direct sanction for polygamy and for marrying the sister of a deceased wife. But, by an examination of every other place in the Hebrew bible, in which the phrase used occurs, Mr. Dwight shows that it is an idiomatic expression, meaning the uniting of one to another. Thus he rescues this passage, pressed as it has been into the service of polygamy and incest. By a chain of reasoning compact and strong, but which is incapable of much abridgment, the learned and pious writer appears to have established, among others, the following propositions:: The Reviewer's Reply. The work to which your correspondent refers-"Dwight's Hebrew Wife”—although not a part of the most recent controversy on the subject to which it relates,* is a performance of undoubted ability and merit. It is not every able work, however, that is conclusive; and we must be permitted to say that a careful perusal of the Hebrew Wife has not been satisfactory to us. According to Mr. Jones, the author has clearly shewn that the supposition that polygamy was allowed in the patriarchal or Levitical dispensation is a popular error." That it is not without authority of learned men, however, may appear from the following words of Michaelis, in his Commentaries on the Laws of Moses :— "How much soever some may have denied it, nothing is more certain than that by the civil laws of Moses, a man was allowed to have more wives than one. No doubt all the proofs of this fact which it is usual to adduce are not valid; and to the maintainers of the opposite opinion it may be an easy matter to controvert such as are weak and inaccurate." The last observation explains a part of Mr. Dwight's apparent success. Some of his arguments fail, however, for a different reason. We give one case as an example. After an historical review of polygamy among the Israelites, he sums up in these terms: 1. That polygamy was forbidden as immoral in its tendency, under both the patriarchal and the Levitical dispensations; and that under both it involved the crime of adultery. 2. That Levit. xviii. 18, is merely a prohibition of polygamy under the Levitical dis- These, if I mistake not, are all the inpensation. stances of polygamy on record among the 3. That incest was a crime before the Israelites. They amount, if we include Levitical law was given. 4. That the law of incest forbids all marriages both of lineals and of collaterals of the first and second degrees by affinity and by consanguinity, therefore of a husband's brother, or a wife's sister, or a niece, or aunt. 5. That either the whole of the law of incest is in force, or that no part of it is in force; and, of course, that if it is lawful to contract any one of the prohibited marriages, it is equally lawful to marry an uncle, a nephew, a sister, a daughter, or a mother. 6. That the law of incest was not a part of the ceremonial law, nor one of the local statutes of the Levitical code; and that the fact of its being one of the general statutes of that code, furnishes no evidence that it is not still in full force and obligatory on all mankind. 66 Joash, to only thirteen single instances, beside that of the children of Uzzi, in a period of more than twelve hundred years."-Hebrew Wife, p. 23. And then follows an argument founded on the assumed fact that among the Israelites there actually were only thirteen case of polygamy in twelve hundred years. Now, in the first place, if only thirteen cases had been recorded, it would not have followed that only thirteen had occurred. But, in the second place, many more than thirteen are recorded-many thousands more. It was originally published in America, and was A notice of it re-published in Glasgow, in 1837. may be found in the Eclectic Review for February, 1811. For this case of "the children of Uzzi," whom, although the author mentions, he thrusts out of his argument, is that of a tribe of six and thirty thousand men: see the mention of them in 1 Chron. vii. 3, 4. And, in the third place, he entirely overlooks the fact, which is strongly put by Maelis as showing "how very common po gamy must have been at the very time when Moses lived, and gave his l.," that the number of the first-born, as stated in Numb. iii. 43, gives only one first-born among 42 children. "So that," adds this eminent scholar, "had the Israelites lived in monogamy, it would follow that every marriage had given birth to 42 children, whereas if every Israelite had four or more wives, it was very possible that of every father that number might have sprung." The structure of Mr. Dwight's general argument on polygamy exhibits a palpable fallacy, by which the whole is vitiated. "We find as the result of our inquiries," says he, "that the original law of marriage forbade polygamy to mankind; that no repeal of that law is found in the scriptures; and that polygamy was not lawful, either among the patriarchs, or under the Levitical code."-Hebrew Wife, p. 39. "Not lawful”. that is, not expressly sanctioned by statute. Certainly not: why should it be? But it was, in the words of Michaelis, "allowed," not forbidden, but connived at, as a fact of actual prevalence and long-established habit, which could not well be abruptly interfered with, but was rather to be indirectly discouraged and gradually eradicated. Mr. Dwight's argument on the question of polygamy failing, the principal argument fails by which he endeavours to establish his interpretation of Leviticus xviii. 18. That this is neither new, nor unconsidered by learned and judicious men, may appear from the following ing extract from Scott's Commentary on the place : "Some think that this verse contains an express prohibition of polygamy, supposing the sister merely to signify a wife which the person spoken of had already married. But though the Mosaic law contains no explicit allowance of polygamy, yet there is no other passage which favours the interpretation of this text as a direct law against it, and many things in the whole subsequent history imply a nivance at it. The context also seems to require a more literal interpretation, namely, the marrying of two sisters together." In treating of the law of incest as given in the 18th and 20th chapters of Leviticus, Mr. Dwight argues strongly that these passages relate to marriage, and not, as has been asserted by others, to criminal acts without marriage. To us, nevertheless, this still seems debateable ground, and it would be easy, did our space permit, to show the fallacy of some, VOL. XII.-FOURTH SERIES. at least, of the arguments employed. We content ourselves, however, with referring to the high authority of that distinguished orientalist, Sir William Jones, in favour of the latter opinion, and with extracting from the evidence presented before the Commissioners the following statement of the Rev. T. Baney:-- The verbally expressed marriage laws of the Hebrews are contained, or are supposed to be contained, in the 18th and 20th chapters of Leviticus. On these it is to be remarked, first, that a question may be raised whether these laws are laws regulating marriage, or whether they are only prohibitions of the grosser forms of irregular sexual intercourse. It is not enough perhaps to say, that they were unnecessary in the latter sense, since they were forbidden in the general and comprehensive law of the Seventh Commandment. The particulars noticed, their being exceedingly gross and abominable forms of disobedience, might warrant their distinct specification. To which may be added, that they were the crying offences of the Canaanites, against which the Israelites were to be warned, that in the 20th chapter, 19th verse, the Seventh Commandment itself is repeated, having added to it the punishment of death, as denounced against its violation. In this list also (that is, in the 20th chapter), it is to be observed, that several of the prohibitions of the first list are repeated, with the addition of a denounced punishment, mostly that of death, which looks much more like the prohibition itself being the prohibition of a gross crime, than the regulation for a possible contemplated marriage. It might be further added, that if the first list be taken as prohibitory of marriages, and not of criminal acts without marriage, it prohibits such a marriage, as that which was contracted by Abraham, and would have been sanctioned by David; and one which is expressly enjoined or regulated by another law, a marriage bearing on the question before us."-Report, p. 88. As to the obligation of the Mosaic law of incest, should it be held to relate to the question of marriage, we should quite agree with Mr. Dwight in separating it altogether from the Levitical code. It is clearly necessary, as he lays it down at p. 124, that all laws intended to regulate an institution common to mankind should have been given at a time, and in a manner, rendering it at least possible that mankind should become acquainted with them. From hence it follows that the Levitical precepts respecting marriage have, as such, no general obligation at all; and that they can present no claim to our regard, unless as being either a collection of anciently promulgated statutes not otherwise recorded, or an expression of the instinctive feelings of mankind in their most just and Cited in the Eclectic Review, for February, 1841. 4 E |