"The author has had in view at once the permanent interests of Biblical Exegesis, and the present phases of some great theological controversies. He has the conviction that it is a matter of special moment that the minds of theological inquirers in general, and of theological controvertists in particular, should be recalled, at frequently recurring intervals, to the calm investigation of the biblical idea as they lie in continuity on the page of inspiration. If such investigation does not exhaust, as it does not,-the possibilities of doctrinal analysis and synthesis; if it leaves indeterminate,—as it does,—the measure of vital elasticity, as regards form, of which the essential realities of theology and religion are susceptible in thought;-it shows nevertheless,―at least when conducted with sufficient freedom from sectarian prepossession, and with adequate literary skill and scientific intuition,—what were the actual representations of things which were evolved in the minds of the inspired writers. When these actual representations are actually ascertained, a touchstone is got hold of, that is of inestimable value for testing the legitimacy of the theological conceptions which are either already current in the churches, or which are pushing their way into public notice, and seeking or demanding ecclesiastical recognition. The farther, undoubtedly, that any doctrines diverge in form from the forms that are explicitly exhibited on the pages of the Book, the less is the likelikood of their resolvability, in substrate, into the biblical forms; and the farther, consequently, must they be removed, so far as real authority is concerned, from the sphere of men's consciences. The more unwieldy, too, must they be in the matter of adaptability for exerting a wholesome ethical influence on men's hearts and lives."* From page 279 to 305 the critical reader will find a piece of work to repay his attention; and if he is one of those younger theologians whom Dr. Morison seeks to aid, he will find the reading not only richly instructive, but in the English of a former age, "vastly entertaining." The way he disposes of his fellow-students of St. Paul who have not taken Dr. Routh's advice and "verified their references," is a lesson on thoroughness and accuracy that should do them good all their days. The main point of criticism is upon the force of ἱλαστήριον, in the version of 1611 rendered as a substantive, propitiation, (Romans iii. 25). But, as in other cases, Dr. Morison has anticipated the Revised Version's marginal reading,-concluding for its adjectival meaning and renders it propitiatory ;—“ Whom God set (publicly) forth (as) propitiatory, (available) through faith in his blood, for demonstration of his righteousness because of the pretermission of the sins of former times in the forbearance * Critical Commentary on Rom. iii. Preface, pages vii., viii. 66 of God,—in order to the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, that he may be righteous even in justifying him who is of faith in Jesus.” And, to the results of this masterly search after the exact import of the word, let the following passage testify: "There can thus be no doubt of the actual conventional usage of the word as employed adjectively. And its simple adjectival force in the passage before us is really all that can be desired. It is in substance approved by Winzer, Matthias, and Mehring. It comprehends and harmonizes, indeed, all that is aimed at in all the other interpretations; but it embraces them in the ampler folds of that indefinite applicability that is characteristic of its own peculiar adjectival import. If Christ Jesus is set forth as propitiatory, then it must be true that he is set forth as a propitiation, and set forth as a propitiatory sacrifice, and set forth, too, at the antitypical fulfillment of all the symbols of propitiation that were divinely instituted under preceding dispensations. It was Christ himself, in his theanthropic personality that was thus propitiatory. He was in his intermingled satisfactio and satispassio, the meritorious cause of God's relation of propitiousness to the human family. It is in consideration of his propitiation that God, as the moral governor of the universe, is willing and is ready to forgive and to justify all such of the "ungodly" as will be induced to take up, by means of faith in the propitiator, that one mental position that will insure their voluntary reception of such divine influences as are needed to renew the heart and assimilate the character to the archetypal character of God." And, as an illustration of the power that the exegetical theologian secures for the statement of truth in doctrinal form,-as a lesson also to younger theologians, upon the value of meditation upon the words within which the living truth is to be found, let the following paragraph, born of the foregoing inves tigation, be not only read but studied: "Propitiation assumes, indeed, that the great moral governor,-considered personally, and as distinct from his abstract moral government, —has been displeased. It assumes that he has been greatly offended, and greatly offended God has really been; offended at rebellion and with rebels. His infinite heart has been stirred. His infinite conscience has been aroused. His holy indignation has sprung up, and gone forth. But other feelings and other principles were at work all the time, and thence arose the idea and the scheme of propitiation. In the accepted propitiation the divine anger has been so turned away that God is now willing, and ready, and eager to forgive the guiltiest of the guilty, treating them for eternity as if they had never sinned. He is willing, ready, and eager, in consideration of the propitiation, to render them who had madly made themselves liable to everlasting death the heirs of everlasting life. The propitiatory work of Christ is thus the great unique fact in the divine moral government, in consideration of which God, as the great moral governor is willing and ready to forgive. Such is its essential nature. But, let it ever be borne in mind that it was in virtue of a self-originated desire in the divine heart, -a desire to be willing to forgive,-that God himself devised the scheme of propitiation."* But one more citation from this able book can be made,-it is from the criticism upon the outcome of the discussion,verse 31. Do we then abolish law through faith? Far be it! On the contrary, we establish law. Before quoting it, let us say that not once in all these four hundred and twenty pages upon this one chapter, does the author's interest seem to wane, or his mental power to flag; and here, at the last, there comes out upon the reader as with a fresh unction, this admirable handling of that majestic sentence, "We establish law." The law, indeed, had not fallen, and was not lying prostrate, so far as its legislative validity and authority were concerned. In the sphere of legislative validity and authority, its position was the same that it had been from the beginning, and will be to the end. It was as stable as the throne of God himself. But when the law is contemplated in a lower sphere, the sphere in which it comes into contact with human volition, the sphere consequently of its actual or factual moral influence upon the inner and outer life of man, we see that there is a sense in which it has been, with awful impiety, not only pushed aside, but overthrowed and trampled under foot. It has been upset. It has been overthrown, and laid prostrate as in the dust. Nay, it has been broken. And men in their infatuation, have danced deliriously over its fragments. Such is sin. There is an insult in it, in reference to the law and the authority of the lawgiver. This is solemn matter of fact. And the apostle was thinking of it; as is evident from the scope of the entire preceding part of the epistle. Now, his doctrine of justification by faith in the propitiation of Christ not only meets the wants of men in the direction of pardon for the past; it also meets their wants in the direction of purity for the future. It involves provision for the establishment of the moral influence of moral law. Into whatever soul it finds an entrance,-in that soul it raises up, as from the dust the prostrate law and makes it stand. It sets-up that which was up-set by sin. It establishes in the sphere of the soul's inner and outer activities, an ethical influence, which is really, -when we let down our line into the depths of the subject,-nothing more, nor less, nor else, than the native moral influence of the moral law. There is a point whence both propitiation and legislation respectively start, and whither they return."+ * On Romans iii., p. 305. Critical Expositon of Romans iii., p. 415. The commentaries on Matthew and Mark are written upon a different plan from the work on Romans iii. They are practical in their intent, and though more popular in their style, contain almost all the scholarship available even to the scholarly, not only upon questions of textual genuineness, but upon. doctrinal and critical opinion. This it is that has called out the unstinted commendations of the discerning, in all sections of the Church. Critics of widely differing theological opinions are at one upon the learning, the labor, the patience, the skill, the soundness of doctrine, the devoutness of spirit shown in these stately volumes. They have their own excrescences, as what able books have not? Yet, the Sword and Trowel,-Mr. Spurgeon's paper, says, "It is a hopeful sign of the times that there is a market for such massive expositions; and we are thankful to Dr. Morison for his addition to the works we prize above all others; viz: comments upon the word of God." The Edinburgh Daily Review,-Free Church paper,--says: "Dr. Morison is laying the Christian Church under deep obligations by his able and elaborate commentaries." Even the United Presbyterian Magazine, the literary organ of the church refusing to let Mr. Morison continue in its fellowship, advises its young ministers to secure these commentaries, and ponder their method and contents. As a specimen of Dr. Morison's introductory matter, let the following be taken upon the aim and plan of Matthew's gospel. Thinking Delitzsch's detection of an exceedingly subtle plan of the gospel hardly borne out by its contents, the author holds. that while the composition systematically carries out its aim of setting Jesus forth (1) as He really was, and (2) as the Messiah, shadowed forth in the whole of the Old Testament history, it does so by a plan finely free, easy, and inartificial." "It is Memorials which the evangelist is engaged in composing. And hence groupings or constellations of things come frequently in, to the great intensification of the ethical influence of the narrative upon the mind of the reader. There are groupings of facts, the natural Magnalia of the Messiah of God, though marvels and miracles to us. There are groupings of far-reaching remarks, which are often like miracles of thought, and which are certainly the germs of theology, sociology, religion, and goodness for all time to come. There are groupings of parables which come within the amphitheatre of our vision like Christian Muses in a troop, with hand locked in hand. They tell their tales ; they chant their music; and then retire; leaving behind a trail of beauty that lights up forever the whole spiritual scene. In short, the tout ensemble of the Memoirs has all the effect of the highest art. The attention never wearies. The interest never flags,-the details of things are so intrinsically catching and captivating, and the range of variety is so great. A child can look and wonder. So may the full grown man, if with the loss of childishness, he have not also lost that childlikeness which is the most beautiful and healthful feature of true maturity of soul."* To show Dr. Morison's theological position, in connection with his expository skill, and his reverent spirit, let a sugges tive extract serve: Matthew xxiii. 37. How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. . . "Wished I: Some of the older expositors stop at this expression and set to work, by might and main, to reconcile it with the doctrine of unconditional reprobation. How could the Saviour, they ask, say I wished, when, if He had really wished He could and would, in an instant, have controlled all their wills and successfully gathered them together under the wings of love and protecting care? He speaks, says Beza, “concerning his external ministry.” Says Piscator "of his human will," as distinguished from his Divine. Says Pareus, "of his Divine will indeed, but only of his preceptive will," and not of his will of good pleasure." We cannot accept any of these answers. Not Beza's, for "external ministry," is neither internal wish nor will. Not Piscator's, for Christ's mere human wish or will, apart from His Divine, would have been of no particular significance to the Jews or to any people; and, moreover, there is no reason to believe that it would be at variance with the Divine. Not Pareus's, for the Saviour is not speaking of what he willed or wished or enjoined others to do, but of what he himself willed and wished to do. Every interpretation that would explain away the reality of the Saviour's sincere and most gracious desire to have all the Jews without distinction or exception gathered together under Him, into the enjoyment of his love and protecting care, is deeply to be deplored, as at radical variance with the fundamental principle of "the gospel." (See John iii. 16.) And ye would not. The language is evidence, as Dean Alford justly remarks, "of the freedom of man's will to resist the grace of God. Calvin was led astray by the theology which he inherited, when he denied the validity of the evidence, and accused those of sophistry who adduced it (a sophistis arripitur). He did not anticipate the progress of philosophic thought, and perceive that the denial of all theology, natural and revealed, is involved in the denial of the freedom of the will.”† * Commentary on Matthew, pages lvii., lviii. |