Mark xvi. 14, "And he upbraided them with their unbelief." The disciples had, indeed, sinned against light, but doubtless welcomed further proof of our Lord's resurrection.

Heb. iii. 12, "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." In this use of anoria there is clearly denoted a degree of obstinacy which may, at any moment, issue in some outward act of disobedience.

Heb. iii. 19, "So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." Here the whole context (which should be read in this connection) makes painfully apparent a contumacy which is wont to manifest itself in repeated as well as flagrant acts of transgression.

The meaning of anoría in the last two passages quoted, differs but little, indeed, from that of nebea; the apostle, however, seems here to dwell upon the cause of the calamities that befell the Jews, to emphasize the dangerous tendency of doubt and unbelief the overt acts of disobedience which: naturally follow on this belief being incidentally mentioned or tacitly implied. Areifea, is disobedience contemplated in its overt acts of opposition to the Divine law, the true cause of such disobedience being inferred. Amoria has its origin rather in ignorance or infirmity, and is often but "the negative omission of good;" the central idea contained in area is that of deliberate and intentional opposition to the will of another and is often a "presumptuous sin."

We shall now cite all the passages of the New Testament containing άлɛɛía, arranging them as before so as to exhibit as far as possible, the different degrees of guilt indicated by the word in the various situations in which it occurs.

We must remind the reader, however, that this attempt will be more obnoxiousto the intrusion of error than the former, since in the domain of morals results may be more safely inferred from motives than motives from results.

In the last two paragraphs cited our version incorrectly renders aneifea by "unbelief."

Eph. ii. 2, "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power

of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience."

Col. iii. 6, "For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh (properly is coming) on the children of disobedience."

Eph. v. 6, "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience."

Heb. iv. 6, "Seeing, therefore, that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of disobedience."

Heb. iv. 11, "Let us labor, therefore, to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of disobedience."

Rom. xi. 30, "For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience." Rom. xi. 32, "For God hath concluded them all in disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all."

The specific degrees of moral turpitude expressed by άлɛíbriα in the first three citations are not so apparent; in the last four, however, I am confident that the gradation is founded on clearly implied distinctions.

Let us consider briefly, the two passages from the fourth chapter of Hebrews. The whole of the third and fourth chapters may be profitably read in this connection. The apostle is speaking to his brethren, by way of admonition, of the repeated offenses of the Israelites, notably of their transgressions in the wilderness. In the twelfth verse of the third chapter, the milder term amoría is employed; for the connection in which it is used clearly shows that the apostle has in mind sins of thought. The writer calmly continues, and again uses azoria in verse 19, though increasing earnestness may, perhaps, be indicated by his use of anɛéw instead of anoréo in the preceding verse. In further contemplating the want of faith and consequent disobedience of the chosen people notwithstanding their peculiar advantages, their many willful acts of transgression rise up before him, and the apostle fitly uses the stronger term anzibar in the sixth verse of the succeeding chapter. In the eleventh verse of the same chapter anaría is once more used and the reason will at once appear if the context be carefully read. Indeed, had

it been the intention of the writer in the passages quoted merely to exhibit in sharp contrast the differences in meaning which subsist between these words, he could in no other way have set forth more clearly the distinctions between them.

It now remains for us briefly to consider the two passages containing anɛɛía in the eleventh chapter of Romans.

In the twentieth verse the unbelief (anioría) of the Jews is set in contrast with the faith (ríora) of the disciples. No other word than anoría could here be employed. Nevertheless, the burden of thought with the apostles is that hardness of heart of the chosen people which, culminating in overt and flagrant acts of disobedience, called down upon them the severe judgments of God. In the thirtieth verse the verb ήπειθήστα is indeed in close connection with the noun ἀπειθεία, the former word indicating that lawlessness of the Gentiles which was wont to break forth in acts of wantonness and outrage, the latter as clearly denoting that insolence and pride of the Jews which so often displayed themselves in the most willful transgressions of the Divine law.

The reader will note with interest (no explanation is needed) another instance of the use of anaέw in the succeeding verse. The only other passage (verse 32) in the New Testament contining dreidea immediately follows. We render literally "For God shut them all up together in disobedience (eis aneibelav) that he might have mercy upon all.”

The employment of anɛɛav in the last quotation is theologically important to the last degree. God, that he might have

We may profitably note here a few facts of a philological character. It will be seen that anɛíɛia is found in the New Testament only in those epistles confessedly of Pauline authorship, and in the epistle to the Hebrews. Anɛioɛia, too, both in Hebrews and in Romans, occurs twice in the same chapter, and, indeed, within the compass or a few lines, and in each case is evidently contrasted with the same word.

Again, anɛíoria is seldom used in Greek writings older than the New Testament, (I have found but a single instance in the classic authors): besides St. Paul was the only one of the apostles eminent for learning and presumably acquainted with Greek literature. It is neither irreverent nor irrational, therefore, to conclude that the "apostle to the Gentiles" was better acquainted than the others with the art of making known his "finer intentions" by a felicitous use of language.

Ought not these facts to be carefully weighed whenever the mooted question is aised respecting the authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews?

mercy upon all, includes in this act of Divine grace not only those whose sins have their spring in ignorance or infirmity, but also those who have touched, it may be, the highest point in the ascending scale of guilt.

No wonder that St. Paul, in contemplating this abundant evidence of the unrestricted scope of God's loving purposes, should exclaim: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" To pursue the subject, however, beyond the point already reached would be to leave the province of exegesis for that of theology.

ARTICLE XIV.

A Re-statement of the

Temperance Problem.

Christian or not, recognizes
Every such man would wel-

EVERY thoughtful man, be he intemperance as a fearful evil. come any solution of the vexing question of how to deal with it, so as to attain success. It is doubtless the decision of most of us that the older we grow, the less we feel that we know the best answer to this question.

Now it is true that the advocates of total abstinence from alcoholic drinks as a beverage, have the best of the argument. So well aware of this are the customary drinkers that they seldom attempt to discuss the question. Whether we meet the votaries of drink on Christian, moral, social, or merely physical grounds we are sure to hold our position. In discussions growing out of the recent phase of the question, viz.: whether prohibition or license is the better method, we still have the argument. We are able to show that in most places license does not restrain the traffic at all, and that it debauches public sentiment on the question of total abstinence. It requires but little argument to show that a license law must always be a failure, since a large majority of its advocates range themselves on that side simply because it is opposed to

prohibition which they fear. They are really in favor of the free sale of liquors, and if the issue were between free rum and license they would oppose the latter. Indeed we have often said that good work might now be done by the prohibitionists for the cause of temperance, if they would use their utmost endeavor to enforce our present law. It might cause the bulk of the friends of license to reveal the true inwardness of their advocacy. But somehow though having the best of the argument, we fail to influence public opinion, to affect the public conscience, and to change the customs of men. So little have we done, so little are we doing, that many are declaring the whole effort a failure. While we cannot accept the full measure of this admission, yet we feel that we have not accomplished what the merits of our cause would lead us to expect. Certain it is that the drink shrine has not now perceptibly a less number of eager devotees than a quarter of a century ago. The prohibitory law, which at least served to keep alive the feeling that liquor selling was not a legitimate business, has had no real existence for more than a dozen years. True also is it that with the return of better times dram shops are increasing. The public, too, seems impatient of further discussion, or turns listlessly away even from the most eloquent presentation of the question. These things being so, it must be admitted that we are not successful, at least not to the degree we ought to be.

It then behooves every one who is interested to ask himself the serious question, Why is this so? Having stated these facts we shall devote the remainder of this article to the presentation of reasons which seem to account for our comparative failure, and to point out, very briefly, the lines of effort we must follow in the future to carry this reform to a triumphant issue. We do not expect to state anything new or startling, but shall be content to recall to the minds of our readers even well-worn truths that have an application to the matter in hand. Among these reasons are the five following, to all but the last of which we give the briefest possible statement: