who differ. There is therefore the necessity of assigning a different place in the Church Creed to those parts that are essential, and to those which are not. "Nonfundamental articles ought to have no place in the Creed." On all other points but what is essential let speculation be free.

In a long note upon the Offering of our Lord, Dr. Milligan discusses in a masterly way the ideas of Substitution and Imputation; the moral element in the plan of salvation ; ἁμαρτία and ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν οι παραπτωμάτων ; both from a critical and from an historical point of view. It will be found of much value by the student.

In conclusion, while in some points we have had occasion to doubt the validity of certain criticisms and lines of argument employed, we cannot close our notice of this work without repeating our high sense of its interesting and suggestive character. Had Dr. Milligan written no other books than his Croall and Baird Lectures on the Resurrection and the Ascension of our Lord, he would have enriched our theological literature to no small degree. These volumes, added to his other works, give him a high place among the theologians and Biblical critics of the day.

R. MACPHERSON, B.D.

THE PREACHER AND HIS MODELS. The Yale Lectures on Preaching, 1891. By the Rev. JAMES STALKER, D.D. London: Hodder & Stoughton. THE writer of these Lectures, in his introductory chapter, ingeniously gives an indirect warning to those whose duty it is to publish the impressions made upon them by his new book. "Criticism," says he, "is a comparatively easy thing. It is easier to criticize the greatest things superbly than to do even small things fairly well." This dictum might, perhaps, be called in question; but, letting it pass for what it is worth, we must confess to a feeling of disappointment with the Yale Lectures on Preaching of 1891. The method adopted by the lecturer-that of sketching the call, character, and work of a Hebrew Prophet and of a Christian Apostle, and of drawing from this material lessons suitable to the ministry of our own times-has, no doubt, a certain freshness; but we cannot greatly admire the fulfilment of the programme. Three-fourths of the book would make instructive and helpful reading for people who never write a sermon or enter a pulpit. The chapter, for instance, upon Isaiah's Call is an exposition, able and beautiful in itself, of that great event in the prophet's history. It begins with remarks as to the position which the record occupies in the book, the time of the vision, and the place in which Isaiah was when he beheld the throne high and lifted up. After this introduction, our familiar friends, firstly, secondly, and thirdly, make their appearance, and we are told that the vision was one (1) of God, (2) of sin, and (3) of grace. These three points having been well elaborated, we are informed that the subject has "an extensive and varied application," details of which are indicated. Thus it is only towards the conclusion that really special lessons for preachers are drawn. The main part of the chapter would serve very well for an ordinary Sunday morning sermon.

Similarly, in the following chapter, whole pages are devoted to a general review of the contents of the prophetic writings, admirable in itself, and well adapted for purposes of popular instruction; but the Yale students must be tyros indeed if they require such elementary information as to the outlines of the social work of Isaiah and Jeremiah. The same observation applies to Dr. Stalker's treatment of his second great model, St. Paul. Of course, when models are set forth for preachers to imitate, it is necessary to call attention to them; but surely it is unnecessary to take up nearly the whole of a lecture with what the author himself calls " а minute analysis of St. Paul's Christianity."

Perhaps the most unsatisfactory chapter is "The Preacher as an Apostle.” When the writer begins by saying that one source from which St. Paul drew the motives of his ministry was "the fact that God had appointed him to the office of an Apostle," and when he further states that a prejudice has been raised against this "spring of action" in consequence of "the many and grave mistakes which have been made through regarding official appointment as the only warrant for Christian work,” the reader anticipates that some light is to be shed upon this vital present-day question. Instead of this, he is suddenly turned off into a review of the journeys, labours, and sufferings of St. Paul, which finally resolves itself into such information as that writing a sermon "will take at least six or eight hours, and may easily take much more "; that "many ministers do not write more than one discourse a week fully out, but many write two "; that in this employment there will be "ample work for a long forenoon on five days of the week"; and that visitation of the members of the congregation will "provide abundant work for the afternoons which study leaves free," and so on.

66

Amongst the most valuable parts of the book are the lecturer's admonitions to his students against pandering to the opinions and prejudices of the people. His denunciation of the preacher who dwells always on the sunny side of truth, concealing the shadows, who enlarges on what is simple and human in Christianity, passing over what is mysterious and Divine, is truly admirable, and must give deep satisfaction to all who love the Christian Faith. He rightly brands as a false prophet "the man who says nothing of the deity of Christ and His atonement, the depravity of human nature, and the terrors of the next world. The author himself, however, throws his sop to Cerberus, and we find him speaking with another voice of "dried-up orthodoxy" and the "shibboleths of yesterday." There is, he says, a" sense in which it (the truth of God) is continually changing." The foundation for this startling statement is that Isaiah said that Jerusalem was inviolable, and that the false prophets of Jeremiah's time repeated the assertion when it did not hold good! To present this as an instance of changing truth is surely a confusion of things that are different. The truth that Jerusalem was inviolable in Isaiah's time did not change, and that was the truth he uttered. The false prophets used ancient phrases, and put their own lies into them. They "wrested" the words of truth to their own and their country's destruction. Even Shakespeare could tell Dr. Stalker that "the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." But the truth of Scripture is not thereby changed. In another part of the book, Dr. Stalker tells us that St. Paul "called upon younger ministers, like Timothy and Titus, to guard it (the truth preached by St. Paul) as a precious treasure, and to transmit it to faithful men, who would be able to teach others also." What if some Yale student were to respond in the lecturer's words, "What was truth for yesterday may be falsehood for to-day," and The only guarantee (of truth) is a humble mind living in the secret of the Lord"?

Such sentences may well produce a feeling of uneasiness in the mind of the "orthodox" Christian. At the same time, he will be thankful for the devotion to Christ so touchingly expressed throughout the volume, and for the deep and earnest spiritual teaching which it contains. H. H. MCCULLAGH, B.A.

PICTURED PALESTINE. BY JAMES NEIL, M.A., formerly Incumbent of Christ Church, Jerusalem, &c. With 80 Illustrations by JAMES CLARK, HENRY A. HARPER, and other artists. 8vo. London: James Nisbet & Co. 1891.

LOVERS and students of their Bible are certainly now more than ever able to represent to themselves how it fared with the "old Fathers," and with the Prophets and

Apostles of old time, and to enlarge their interest in that small region of earth so truly called "the Holy Land." That interest, too, is ever deepening, for Jew and Christian alike, as the course of Divine destiny is working towards the accomplishment of yet unfulfilled prophecy.

Such books as Mr. Neil's, written with familiar knowledge and enlivened by the pencil of able artists, will always find a hearty welcome. Sudden, unexpected lights glance across the sacred pages. A more human sympathy grows up as "the touch of nature" strikes us here and there. The places and people of the present stand up as witnesses to the record of the past. Difficulties turn into proofs, to the strengthening of that healthy faith which, as Arnold well said, "is the highest exercise of reason." These things help us to "receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to save our souls," and are doubly welcome at a time when meekness is no common temper even towards the Word of God, and we are often afraid that "the faithful are minished from among the children of men."

We do not bind ourselves to all Mr. Neil's ways of putting things-e.g., in his dicta on metaphorical language and the like. But, as so often, the value is much more in the positive part, which is so worthy of attention, than in the negative, which many readers will qualify from their own knowledge. The bold and striking illustrations are a contrast, not unwelcome, to the finesse of detail which photogravure has made so familiar. The most homely figures and groups of field or market or workshop have a Biblical air which is both true and pleasing. There is also, here and there, a touch from the Egyptian monuments, well bestowed to confirm what is said of the permanence of most ancient types in still unsophisticated places of Oriental life.

We find most unexpected light on things that seem strange in the Bible in reading this book. For instance, it is said of the disgusting dervishes (p. 216) that they "frequently have the horn of a he-goat or buffalo to sound in praise of the generosity of those who give them alms." We have never met with anything so near to the literal sense of the warning of our Lord, “Do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do," &c. (Matt. vi. 2). H. G. TOMKINS.

CURRENT

AMERICAN

THOUGHT.

APOLOGETICS IN THE PULPIT. By F. H. FOSTER (New Englander and Yale Review).—There is no place in the pulpit for apology in the ordinary sense of that word. We conceive the apologist, as one who has a doubtful, possibly a bad cause to maintain, and we associate with him a certain timidity of appearance, an attitude half of defence and half of excuse, and a success at least ambiguous. No such ideas are to be associated with the Christian preacher. He may fear for himself, or he may have causes in his own heart or life which might lead to apology, but in his presentation of the Gospel he is to cast all this aside and to speak out in the full consciousness of the dignity and benignity of his message. To do anything else is to fall short of his privileges and of his duty.

Nor, when its meaning is rightly conceived, as the orderly defence of the Christian system in argument before its opponents, is apology to form the staple of the preaching of the pulpit. No army ever won a campaign by purely defensive tactics.

NO. V.-VOL. I.-THE THINKER.

EE

And hence apology must be relegated to its proper place, which is never the principal place, in the ministrations of the pulpit.

Yet, in a proper sense, and at a proper time, apology has a place in the pulpit. There are real difficulties in respect to Christian truths, and that too the most fundamental and important of them, which perplex the Christian as well as impede the progress of the unbeliever towards the truth. And hence for two reasons, for the confirmation of the faith of the Church itself, and for the help of the world, attention needs to be paid to the difficulties of men.

CERTAIN CAUTIONARY REMARKS UPON THE CONDUCT OF APOLOGETIC PREACHING.

1. As to the manner of the discussion. This should be calm. The apologist must give the impression to others that he himself is not disturbed by the problem which he is discussing before his people, and to this, calmness of demeanour, and what is more important, calmness and deliberation of argumentation, are absolutely necessary. Jerkiness of style, disorder of arguments, appeals and exhortations, rhetorical flourishes and melodramatic situations, are all to be avoided, because they convey the idea of haste and disturbance. The speaker will not convince who is, or appears to be, in doubt himself. It should also be candid. You must not only meet your adversary, but you must seem to him to meet him. You must not only see the force of his arguments, but so evidently appreciate them that when you have stated them, there will be no opportunity to say that the other side has not been fairly dealt with or but half represented in the debate. It should be also objective, i.e., should confine itself to tangible arguments and facts, leaving the region of motives out of the account. The adversary of the Christian faith has the right to be regarded as honest, to be grappled with in a manly and honest combat, and the apologist will consult the interests of his own cause by doing this. It should be strong. The preacher must prove his case, or he had better let the subject alone. Strength belongs often to manner as much as to matter. Do not only be strong, but seem so. And it should be sympathetic. It should see what is really good in the opponent, and thus sympathize with him, which is an intellectual sympathy. But it should also be filled with sincere pity for the erring man.

On this branch of my subject I am sure I do not need to dwell. I pass, therefore, to the more important caution which I wish to emphasize.

2. As to the source of the argument. (1) This may be drawn from natural science in part. There is a line of popular apology much favoured at present which is likely to react upon the Christian faith to its detriment, the line, namely, pursued by Drummond in his Natural Law in the Spiritual World. Close analysis will show that that argument is not drawn from the analogies which subsist between the natural and the spiritual, but from an assumed identity between them. Now, there are striking analogies between the two worlds, as is not strange, since they evidently proceed from the hands of one maker. These may be fruitful in illustrative quality, and may often light up a sphere into which illumination reaches from no other quarter. But there cannot be an identity of law in the two spheres, since law is a method of operation, and if two entities are acted upon in methods altogether the same, they must themselves be altogether the same, or else there would be at some point a difference of reaction to the operative force, involving a difference of law. But matter and mind are not identical. To make them such is to proclaim materialism, and materialism is materialism, whether it be preached ignorantly by a Christian minister, or be knowingly advocated by an enemy of the truth of Christ. Materialisın is the great opponent of Christianity in every age of the Church from the beginning.

It is the antithesis of Christianity, for God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Analogies drawn from "life" need also to be handled with care. It is often said that we must have a vital Christianity. True; but what do you mean precisely? The objection has sometimes been made to the governmental theory of the atonement that it is drawn from the analogy of government, whereas the analogy of life is more instructive. But it should be remembered that life is a physical thing, and proceeds within the realm of natural forces, that it is under the control of force, whereas government is not an analogy, but a fact, and is moral; that is, conducted by influence exerted upon free wills, which is something spiritual, and far higher than physical force. There are analogies from life which are good; but those which are drawn from the particulars in which life departs from its likeness to the spiritual, are mischievous and only such. Thus to say that forgiving sin without an atonement can never break down the government of God, since, no matter what the sinners may do, the government of God stands, is to make that government one of force, and to destroy at bottom its moral character. If any soul for a sound reason should rebel against God-and there would be a sound reason, if God exhibited Himself as indifferent to the guilt of sin-the moral government of God would be destroyed; that is, His power rightly to influence a soul to obedience would be gone for ever. Analogies from "life" which forget this are only harmful.

Or (2) the argument may be drawn from Christian history. This is one of the most fruitful fields of effective apology, though it requires a large degree of what may be called erudition to employ historical apology successfully. Permit me, since my own special studies lie in this direction, to dwell upon this portion of my theme more at length than would otherwise be appropriate.

(a) The permanence of Christianity, when rightly handled, is an argument of great power. There is no fact more plain or more significant than that of the transitoriness of philosophical systems. Yet amid all this, amid the succession of pantheistic, deistic, atheistic systems, the Church has gone on her way unmoved, and taught the same doctrine of one personal and infinite God from the beginning, which she teaches to-day. That singular phenomenon has a cause, which is either the superior evidence of the doctrine, or the presence of a supernatural teaching power in the Church which warrants it. As an illustration of the argument from the permanence of the Church, let me dwell a little upon the argument from the Christian persecutions. The constancy of the Christian martyrs of the early ages was remarkable. The Christians referred their constancy to the presence and help of the living Saviour. Now, they were either right, or under the power of a very strong delusion. But a delusion does not endure for ages, and Christian martyrs, whose description of their experiences are the same, are to be found in every Christian century, including our own, yes, the past decade of our own. It was only by belittling and disguising the facts that Gibbon was ever able to make for an instant the impression of having evacuated the force of this argument.

(b) Again, most of the modern arguments against Christianity are really very ancient. I know that modern science is a new thing, but the mind of man is not new, and was as acute in the year 150 as it is to-day. Now when it is shown that these arguments have been brought up over and over again, and always rejected as not meeting the case, the rational argument against them receives a reinforcement, which, whether properly or not, exerts a prodigious influence; and in my opinion its influence is healthful and proper.

(c) Then again, the arguments presented by many of the Christian writers from