THE ITINERANTS' CLUB.

THE CHARACTER OF THE PEOPLE OVER WHOM TITUS WAS APPOINTED PASTOR-TITUS i, 10-16.

PAUL'S description of the church in Crete, to which Titus was appointed as minister, is anything but attractive. The field was not an inviting one. The difficulty lay not in the outward condition of the church, its social environments, but in the low character of its people. The passage itself is a vivid portraiture of a people who needed the Gospel, and the utmost wisdom in the one who taught them. "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure: but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." A few of the words by which he designates them describes their character.

They were "unruly and vain talkers and deceivers." By unruly are evidently meant those who were not willing to submit to discipline. All well-ordered society must have a method of discipline, and an orderly doing of things which cannot with safety be ignored. There were those among them who preferred to make their own laws and control the Church rather than be controlled by it. "Vain talkers and deceivers." The word rendered "vain talkers" (uaraiλ6yoi) refers rather to empty talking, involving a lack of understanding of what they say. They are such as elevate minor things into matters of great importance, such as genealogies, etc.

More than this, they are also deceivers (ppɛvanáτai). The deception is not, probably, always in intention, but grows out of imperfect knowledge. They were self-deceivers. Mental deception may also lead to the deception of others. The connection of thought seems to include the intentional deception of others. They may have been, as has been suggested, visionary persons, whose natures were shallow and were readily the subjects of illusions. This is mentioned in the passage as the special character of those who came from Judaism and were ever ready to find fault with those things in the new religion with which they were not familiar.

Two things are affirmed of this class in verse 11: "They subvert whole houses." It is a dangerous thing to subvert or, as the revisers

have it, "overthrow" whole houses. This is striking a blow at the roots of society. It is bad to overthrow individuals, but much worse to subvert whole houses, or families. The other affirmation is the motive that underlay their actions: "For filthy lucre's sake." Nothing seemed unfair to a Cretan, as Ellicott indicates by a quotation from Polybius: "They are the only nation in the world among whom no sort of gain is thought unfair.” This is the root of corruption everywhere. That "the love of money is the root of all evil" has many illustrations in actual life. It is the most subtle way of leading astray the shallow mind. Money is a dangerous tempter even to the cultivated intellect. It is quite easy to reach the conclusion that what is financially profitable is morally right. Corruption in doctrine leads to corruption in action, and so they did not hesitate, for filthy lucre's sake, to subvert not individuals only but also whole families. The degradation involved in such a condition of things is very apparent.

The apostle confirms his statement of the general character of the Cretans by a quotation from Epimenides, a poet of Crete who resided there about 600 B. C. The lines here quoted are characterized as perfect hexameter verse. This quotation exactly tallies with the description Paul has already given, and is pertinent because it comes from one of their own number. They are here designated as "always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies," or, as the revisers have it, "idle gluttons" instead of "slow bellies." This is certainly a very sensuous description. "Always liars": what a characterization from one of their own poets! To attempt an explanation of it is unnecessary. "Evil beasts": this refers to the lawlessness which recognizes neither time nor place. They are set forth as cruel and rude, beneath the dignity of men. They are also "idle gluttons;" what a vivid picture of a people who do nothing, whose whole life is one of self-indulgence! The character of the Cretans was so base that it had passed into a proverb.

The quotation, however, has been much discussed because of the insight it is supposed to give concerning Paul's familiarity with the Greek classics. There are three passages in the New Testament which have been cited to prove that Paul was well versed in Greek literature, namely, the one now under consideration, also Acts xvii, 28, and 1 Cor. xv, 33. One class of thinkers declares that these citations from classical authors prove nothing as to Paul's familiarity with them. Plummer says: "They cannot be relied upon as sufficient to prove that St. Paul was well read in classical literature any more than the quoting of a hackneyed line from Shakespeare, from Byron, and from Tennyson would prove that an English writer was well acquainted with English literature. It may have been the case that St. Paul knew a great deal of Greek classical literature, but these three quotations, from Epimenides, from some Greek tragedian, and from Cleanthes or Aratus, do not prove the point." The whole trend of his statement is to indicate that Paul may not

have been familiar, in any personal way, with any of these poets, but that these quotations were, so to speak, in the air, and might have been employed very naturally by one who had no familiarity with the original. Dr. Plummer adds, however, "We do not need this evidence to prove that the apostle was a person, not only of great energy and ability, but of culture." Others maintain that these references do prove a familiarity with the authors from whom they are quoted and incidentally indicate his general acquaintance with Greek classical literature. We incline to the latter view. The presumption is in favor of his knowledge of the classical literature of his time.

Another question has arisen as to the propriety of classical literature as a subject of study for ministers of the Gospel. In early Church history there were those who would have nothing to do with it, to whom all non-Christian literature was an abomination. A quotation from a classical author, or an idea which seemed to have its origin in classic thought, was, in their view, improper to be employed, because such writings seemed to depreciate the supremacy of Christian thought and of Christian literature. Many of the fathers rejected them with disdain. Others, however, with broader view recognized beautiful thought and diction as the common heritage of humanity, and that it might properly be employed to illustrate and enforce the teachings of Christ. When quotations are made from classic authors, or allusions are given to classical literature, not for the display of superior scholarship but to emphasize the point under consideration, to employ such is not only fitting but desirable. There are those to whom the beauty of the setting will open more fully the thought which it is intended to set forth. The employment of this quotation by Paul was clearly most appropriate; he is giving to Titus a description of the character of the people to whom he is to minister. He sets forth their base characteristics in bold outline. They are so shocking that the description seems almost incapable of belief, so he clinches his description by a quotation from one of their own poets, whom he designates as a prophet.

It is clear that the apostle does not speak of Epimenides as a prophet in the sense in which he would apply the word to one of the old Hebrew prophets; he uses the term in a sense which would be readily understood by Titus or by a classical reader. The poets were, to their people, the teachers and prophets of their time, and were held in peculiar respect.

The consecution of thought is striking. After making the quotation he says, "This witness is true," and proceeds to give instruction to Titus. He must "reprove them sharply." Mild rebuke in their condition will not answer; they are too hardened for that. And yet we are not to suppose that the apostle meant unkind or bitter reproof. Bitterness of reproof is not consistent with the spirit of the Gospel. In 2 Tim. iv, 2, Paul states more fully his meaning, "Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine." One

cannot fail to notice the clear parallelism between this passage and the one under consideration. Here he says, “Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." The connection between reproof and doctrine is here clearly set forth. Good practice is closely related to true doctrine, and a reformation in practice is often the sure way to a restoration in doctrinal belief. It has been well said that this passage does not give countenance to ministerial scolding. It is the spirit and method in which reproof is administered that makes the difference between scolding and reproof. The reproof that springs from love is far removed from bitter invective which springs from our corrupt nature. He who would, as a minister, restore the wanderer in his flock may well study the apostle's method on occasions of extreme provocation.

The true life is the inner life. Purity of heart and life enjoys and appropriates God's gifts. Things indifferent in themselves may become helpful or harmful as the pure or the impure employ them. Hence he lays down the great principle which Christ himself lays down and which Paul enforces elsewhere, namely, "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." Purity is obtained by faith in Christ, and the unbelieving, having no true approach to the great fountain of cleansing, are defiled both in mind and conscience. What a sad result of impurity! What a sad condition when the mind-that which represents the thinking and believing faculties of man-is defiled and does not appreciate the truth, and when the conscience ceases to perform its high functions in recalling his failures and moral obligations! The result in the Christian community is a contradiction between profession and practice which the apostle deplores and vigorously condemns in the closing verse of this chapter.

The homiletical uses of this passage to the pastor are:

1. No field of labor is too unpromising for the most gifted and well-equipped pastor. Paul makes no apology for assigning Titus to a field which, from the character of its people, was one of the most unfavorable that could be thought of. No abilities are too high for the humblest and the most difficult fields of labor.

2. This passage suggests the proper use of the classical literature. It is to prove and illustrate, not merely to adorn, the message. It is proper to employ it when it becomes an instrument and not an end.

3. The proper mode of dealing with a refractory and turbulent people. The minister should reprove with love, and in his teachings distinguish carefully between the essential and the nonessential.

4. The one quality which clarifies thought and ennobles action and transforms even indifferent things into elements of truth and beauty is purity. "Unto the pure all things are pure."

5. The duty of guarding carefully any disharmony between profession and practice. This passage teaches us to preserve the essence of the Gospel amid the imperfections incident to our human nature.

ARCHEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL RESEARCH.

THE CODE OF HAMMURABI.

THE discovery of this remarkable code is one of the greatest triumphs of archæology and is of paramount interest to students of ancient history. It carries us back into gray antiquity, to a period long antedating not only the laws of Moses, but also the Tel-el-Amarna correspondence; for it is generally agreed that these letters were written about 1500 B. C., whereas the great ruler Hammurabi flourished about 2250 B. C. There is also a pretty general consensus of opinion that the Hammurabi of our code, often referred to in the cuneiform texts, is no other than the Amraphel, king of Shinar, mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis as the ally of Chedorlaomer, who with other kings conducted a military campaign against the petty kings of Canaan, subduing several tribes or nations on either side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, and who continued his victorious march at least as far south as Kadesh-barnea. This fourteenth chapter of Genesis, dry as it may seem to the careless reader, is a precious piece of history; for though chronicling events of the days of Abraham, a contemporary of Hammurabi, it now, after a silence of nearly five thousand years, finds a most remarkable confirmation.

It has been known for a score or more years that Hammurabi was a great ruler, that he extended his conquests far and wide. He was a many-sided man. He built a large number of palaces and temples, restored and remodeled many others. He promoted commerce and agriculture over his vast empire. His letters, of which we have a goodly number, and which were noticed in this Review several months ago, bear testimony to a very high state of civilization among his subjects. In them we have incidental reference to courts of justice, a regular standing army, a state religion, and a very perfect system of commerce. All these presuppose the existence of a code precisely like the one just unearthed. These references to Hammurabi and his laws may be compared to similar references in the poetical and historical books of the Hebrews to the existence of the Mosaic code. Does not this look as if the code existed before the letter referring to it? If so, why should some critics ask us to believe that the so-called laws of Moses were written after the historical, devotional, and prophetical books of the Hebrews?

This code of Hammurabi, though written in Babylonian script, strange as it may seem, was discovered not in Babylonia or Assyria but in Susa, Persia. Susa, the Shushan of the Bible, was for a long time a royal residence. It was captured and recaptured repeatedly. Elam and Babylonia had frequent wars. The Elamites