to the authorship and date of these books. As well might we dismember the Gospels and the Epistles on the basis of the names by which the Redeemer is therein designated. There are some such peculiarities in the New Testament, and a few of its writers to a certain degree affect special terms and epithets as applied to Jesus Christ; but it would be preposterons to make these a guide to the authorship of those pieces.

We conclude, then, that while it is not improbable that the author of Genesis employed written documents as well as oral traditions in composing the book, and while it is possible that these may in some instances have been originally characterized by the prevalent use of the divine names noted above, yet he so thoroughly remodeled and unified these materials that it is now quite impracticable and futile to recognize or separate the elements. We should as little expect to see the attempt successfully accomplished as to pick out and classify according to origin the several pieces of information which Luke acknowledges in his preface (i, 2) that he incorporated into his Gospel. In both cases the whole was fused and recast into a fresh form which fairly bears the mark of individual authorship.

ART. III.-RELATION OF THE PULPIT TO SKEPTICAL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.

WITH the facts of science theologians have no dispute. But the theories are often widely divergent from the facts, and threaten and assail the primary truths of religion. The facts of science may be susceptible of explanation in harmony with the fundamental principles of Christianity. Not so with many of the theories said to be educed from the facts. These are constantly at war with truths which are vital to the perpetuity and stability of the Christian religion.

What is the duty of the gospel preacher in relation to these skeptical theories? Shall he undertake directly to refute them by formal argument? This seems to be the notion of many. Holding that they are set for the defense of the Gospel, they make their pulpits ring out with defiant onslaughts upon the schools of skeptical criticism, and marshal in formidable array FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXIV.-3

the categorical proofs that all the latest phases of unbelief are false. Is this wise? It may give a minister the appearance of learning and zeal, but does it prove that he is endowed with a large degree of common sense? Certainly a minister should be ready to give to every man that asketh him a reason of the hope that is in him, with meekness and fear, but it does not follow that he shall volunteer before every promiscuous assembly to parade what he knows about all opposition to the principles of natural religion. "It may be safely said," says the "London Methodist," "that not one in fifty in our congregations knows or cares any thing about the vagaries of skepticism, either new or old. . . The old function of the preacher is the true modern function. When Paul spoke of coming not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but with words about Christ crucified, full of power and the Holy Ghost, he meant his example to be imitated through all time.”

But Paul gives us something more direct and specific upon this point than his example. In his letter to Timothy he made express mention of "profane babblings, and the oppositions of science falsely so called," charging the young minister to avoid them. No matter what these "oppositions of science," or gnosis, (knowledge,) "falsely so called," were, they may properly be regarded as standing in the same relation to the pulpit then that philosophical doubtings and quibblings do now, and the discerning Paul enjoins upon his son in the Gospel abstention from them. That Paul's charge was well founded, and that it has peculiar application to the pulpit of to-day, may appear from two or three considerations.

I. Let us regard the pulpit in relation to certain other agencies. Time was when the sacred desk had a sort of monopoly in its contact with the public mind. It was the school of the common people, the means of imparting knowledge, secular, political, or religious, as the case might be, to the masses which congregated to hear. The mighty "election sermons" in this country of less than a century ago are in proof.

Times have changed. The responsibility of imparting instruction is now shared by the schools, the forum, the platform, the legislative hall, and the mammoth press. This is an age of books, quarterly reviews, monthly magazines, weekly

and daily newspapers, and hourly pamphlets. Great assemblies, like scientific congresses, evangelical alliances, ecumenical conferences, are the order of the day. It is also an age of specialists and specialties. Almost every department of labor and thought has become systematized, each particular branch calling for its adept. There are few general scientists, historians, or practitioners of great note. Even the pulpit has its evangelists, its prophets, its apostles, its teachers, and its pastors. Few, too few, clergymen are distinguished in all these particulars. Almost every illustrious personage in the world of thought gained his distinction by making some one thesis a matter of special attention.

Another peculiarity of the age is that external lines separating the provinces of workers are less clearly and closely drawn than of old. Practical laborers are all mixed up, as the Sadducees thought family matters would be in the resurrection. Gladstone, the statesman, enters the ecclesiastical arena, and, by a few strokes of his pen, shakes Rome to its center. Agassiz, the doctor, enters the domain of science, and, by the originality and completeness of his demonstrations, gains an estate of honor more enduring than that of princes. Lincoln, the lawyer, steps into the Presidential chair, rules the affairs of the nation through the darkest period of her history, falls in death as the clouds disperse and the glory of freedom and victory dawns, but hands a name down to posterity which shall brighten more and more with every succeeding historic cycle. Moody, the layman, enters the pulpit, and preaching Jesus to the largest audiences which ever hung continuously on human lips, sets the world ablaze with the fire of gospel grace, and rescues perishing thousands from the débris of darkest guilt. Huxley, though educated for a physician, is better known as a scientist. Cook was trained for the pastorate, but achieved his fame on the platform. Thousands upon thousands set apart for one work have won their highest success in another. To these irregularities no one is found to demur. None cavil about Moody's ordination papers. His success is his parchment. Mrs. Palmer had no formal license to preach, but many believed for the sayings of the woman, and her call to that department of labor was unquestioned. There are distinguished editors and college presidents who

labored for years as pastors without evangelistic triumphs. What does all this prove? Not that the pulpit, the platform, the forum, and the press, have no distinct lines of work, but that the distinctive features of all are held more in common than of old, and that all share in honor as common media for instructing the people. If a minister, therefore, is required to abstain from the discussion of anti-Christian opinions while breaking the bread of life to hungry souls, he is not thereby debarred from such privileges at proper times and in proper channels.

II. Consider, for a moment, the distinctive mission of the pulpit, namely, the preaching of the Gospel. Christ said: "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." Paul said to Timothy: "Preach the word. Be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine; for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine." There is not in the whole Bible a scientific essay or a philosophical dissertation. Unquestioned facts of science, philosophy, and political economy are sometimes incidentally employed to illustrate or enforce truth, but nowhere, either by example or injunction, are they made the basis of religious discourse. How many sermons there are which bear not the slightest resemblance to Christ's practical sermon on the mount, or Peter's earnest appeal after Pentecost, or Paul's argumentative discourse before Agrippa. They are not like these because they have no Gospel in them. "Recently," says a writer, "I heard a minister preach a sermon from the text, 'What is man,' etc. About three fourths of the hour was occupied in presenting the modern materialistic, spiritualistic, evolution, and development theories-forcibly reminding me of the young lawyer, who, after hearing an eminent divine preach a sermon on the divinity of Christ, remarked to a friend: "I always believed in the divinity of Christ until I heard that sermon, which has completely shaken my faith." Rev. Dr. C. H. Fowler has uttered a sentiment which ought to bring a response from the amen corner," if such a thing remains in the Church. He says: "We hear so much about scientific truth and about science, that we have grown sick of the conceit and assumption of these babblers. A dying race wants the Gospel, and it is not anxious to have it any more scientific

66

than it was when presented by the great Teacher. It requires only a limited experience to see that the ministers who boast most about their scientific preaching and knowledge are the ministers who starve their congregations, and who are frequently stationed by the Bishop without the knowledge of the charge, to avoid protests. Give us the Gospel. It is not dead. It still saves. Give it a chance. So we say, we are not anxious for any thing but the facts of a Bible experience." The habitual presentation of skeptical scientific theories is degrading to the pulpit. Look at one or two of these theories.

1. Tyndall's prayer-test, if it is worthy of being denominated a scientific theory. Professor Tyndall is regarded as a materialist. His celebrated Belfast inaugural address was a sufficient declaration of his materialistic notions. In July, 1872, he received a letter proposing that the efficacy of prayer should be tested by making one ward of a hospital the special object of the prayers of the faithful for a term of years, and then comparing its death-rate with that of other wards during the same period of time. This letter he published with favorable annotations in the "Contemporary Review." The plausibility of the scheme gave rise to a general declaration that the Christian world was fairly challenged, and because the challenge was not accepted infidels boasted and believers trembled. At length a better class of thinkers began to give the subject attention, bringing out its under-current of rank skepticism. The idea of making the holy God bend to the unconditioned test of an infidel, in order to vindicate the divine reputation for hearing the cries of the good, was shocking to thoughtful people every-where.

2. The development hypothesis. Though many advanced thinkers are of the opinion that with proper restrictions this theory does not necessarily conflict with divine revelation, there can be no doubt that skepticism in regard to the Bible has all along characterized the spirit of most of its leading advocates. The theory itself contains no element of the Christian faith, and the nearest any of its champions have come to an expressed regard for the Bible has been a manifesto of independence of biblical teachings.

If, then, there is no gospel in Huxley, with his "protoplasm," or Spencer, with his "universal evolution," or Bastian,