THE ITINERANT'S OLUB.

IS THERE A DECLINE IN PULPIT POWER?

ONE of the prominent subjects of discussion at the present time is the assumed decline of the Christian religion. Statistics have been studied with the most patient care, and it is argued that the slow increase or actual decrease in the membership of the Church shows a decline in the confidence of mankind in Christianity. How far such a decline is temporary, as often happens in all great movements affecting mankind, or how far it indicates a general decadence of Christian faith and consequently of Christianity itself, are questions that need further discussion before a just conclusion can be reached. Assuming this decline to be real, the causes are being considered with much earnestness. It is held that modern critical methods have had much to do with it; that the weakening of the faith on the part of the people through the teachings of negative criticism has led to a neglect of the word of God, except in its literary aspects, and has thus weakened the influence of Christianity as a saving force, in the evangelical sense. Whatever may be the causes for this decline, it is safe to assume that a widespread feeling exists that such is the case, and philosophical students of Christianity are earnestly endeavoring to account for it.

Connected with the subject of the decadence of Christianity is the question as to whether the power of the pulpit has declined. This is asserted by many to be the case. should be adequate reasons for it:

If there is such a decline, there

1. It is affirmed that the Gospel itself has ceased to impress men. The story of the cross has become old. It has been repeated almost two thousand years, and it is thought by many that the "old, old story" is no longer effective. These believe that, in order to impress men, there must be practically a new Gospel. But that this is not true is evident, for the facts will show as already indicated, that the largest congregations are found in Churches all over the country where the old, old story is adhered to most closely. Except in rare instances the people are not attracted by discourses on themes unconnected with the Gospel. In times of genuine revivals, as a rule, the houses of worship are crowded, prayer meetings are well attended, and all the interests of the Church advance vigorously. The story there told is the simple story of salvation, of redemption by the blood of Christ. It is difficult to find a vigorous Church movement, either in active Christian communities or in the desolate portions of the city, that is not carried forward under preaching which emphasizes the great heart facts of the Gospel, such as the incarnation, the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A study of churches

where conversions most frequently abound will emphasize the same thought. The old, old story is not worn out, and when properly presented is still "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth."

2. Another possible explanation is that the method of the presentation of the Gospel is not as effective as that of former times. We may well pause to consider whether this may not, in a measure at least, be true. It must be conceded that with widespread intelligence public speaking has ceased to draw audiences to the extent which was the case in former times when books were not so abundant and when literature was less widely diffused. It has been claimed that there is a decadence in oratory. We are giving more attention to the substance of things than to their form, and a revival of the study of public speech is very desirable. Mere elocutionary practice, as such, is not sufficient, although it is of vast importance. The case involves the study of modes of address, expression, and argument which are best calculated to impress the people of our time. We may not return to the methods of former years, nor would it be wise to rely on the past too much as furnishing models for the present. But great attention should be given to the study of public speaking in institutions of learning, far greater, we think, than is now given to it. It often happens that one with less material, who has an effective mode of delivery, accomplishes far more good than those with more ability and less adaptation of method. How to combine substance and form, the matter of speaking and the delivery, with harmony and effectiveness is the problem of the orator and teacher of to-day. Simplicity of address should be cultivated. Men and women like directness. They will go to sleep over long periods, abstruse sentences, and high-sounding words, while a plain, straightforward statement will often be effective. To be simple in style is not to be commonplace. The richest thought has its most perfect form in language that is at once chaste and plain. It would seem that a revival of the study of public speaking, with the purpose of learning the forms which are adapted to our new era, is much needed at the present time.

3. Another possible explanation of the lack of pulpit power, if it exist, is that the preachers do not present the side of the Gospel which the present age demands. It is believed that it is the duty of our age to present the ethical side of Christianity, and that the Gospel fails to impress men because it is not sufficiently practical. There may be some truth in this, but the age when the ethical aspect of Christianity has been the sole one presented has not been the age when the Gospel has been most effective. There was fine preaching in the time of Wesley. The reading of the sermons of the eighteenth century will show that many of them are thorough expositions of the ethical side of Christianity. Dr. Briggs, in the North American Review, seems to claim that Christianity is advancing rather than

declining, and assigns as the evidence: "In our age greater attention is given to Christian ethics and sociology than ever before. A man who has the ethical enthusiasm of our times is inclined to criticise historical Christianity with great severity because of its failure to realize the highest ethical ideals, and especially those presented by Jesus in his teachings and example. . . . Some good men in our times are disgruntled with historical Christianity for its ethical failures, and keep aloof from the Church on that account; but these, after all, are proportionately few, and they are unreasonable, for they exaggerate the ethical phase of Christianity over against the doctrinal and vital. . . . Indeed, it is Christianity itself which is chiefly responsible for the ethical enthusiasm of the present time, and this is an evidence that Christianity is about to enter upon the last and highest stage of its development." It is evidently the thought of Dr. Briggs that a revival of ethical preaching, as distinguished from dogmatic preaching, so called, is to mark the new era upon which we are entering, for only by ethical preaching can ethical ideas be maintained in the Church. No one will question the importance of the presentation of the ethical side of Christianity. But it will be most effective when kept in vital relation to the life that is in Christ Jesus.

We cannot believe, however, that the remedy for any supposed decadence in Christianity is to be found in ethical preaching. It has already been shown that the attendance upon Christian services is greatest in those Churches where what are called the historic facts of Christianity-as the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection of Christ, in connection with his teachings—are most deeply and profoundly preached. We may again refer to the fact that the liberal Churches, so called, where the ethical form of preaching is most constant and of the highest order, have not made such advances in membership or in commanding influence as to give promise that this is the method by which Christianity is to be restored to its primitive vigor.

We cannot then believe that there is any clear evidence of a transition to a new age in which attendance upon Church services shall no longer be considered an evidence of the possession of Christianity, of which examples are cited on the continent of Europe. Nor do we think that there is any marked decline in pulpit power. It were easy to cite the names of the preachers who have swayed immense audiences in our great centers for the last quarter of a century, to show that preaching power is not dead. The Church and the ministry especially need the revival of a firm faith in the great historic facts of Christianity, a mighty baptism of power through the Holy Spirit, and a renewed purpose to bring the world to Christ, in order to exhibit to the world the old-time power of Christianity. The nineteenth century, so far as Christianity is concerned, is not closing in darkness or despair, but in light and in hope.

THE PROLOGUES OF ST. PAUL.-II. FIRST AND SECOND

CORINTHIANS.

IN the last issue attention was called to the remarkable prologue of Paul in his letter to the Romans, it seeming appropriate that such an elaborate prologue should accompany so profound a letter. It is probable that the prologues in the several epistles were determined by the subject-matter of the epistle, indicating the attitude which the apostle proposed to bear toward his readers. In Romans, for instance, Paul designates himself as "a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle." In First Corinthians he says of himself, "Called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ," omitting the word "servant." Further, in the former he mentions the historic fact concerning himself that he had been “separated unto the Gospel of God," while in the latter he asserts that his apostolic call was by "the will of God." These differences cannot have been the mere incidents of composition, but must have had a better reason for their existence. And what reason more natural can be assigned than that Paul was writing a formal treatise to the Romans and did not wish to express so much his apostolic authority as his relation to Christ both as apostle and servant?

A study of the epistles to the Corinthians indicates that among them Paul's apostolic authority had been impugned. This is especially shown in his second epistle. Indeed, many claimed that as he was not one of the original apostles he was no apostle at all. As he was about to give instruction on many Church questions which had been submitted to him by the church at Corinth, he deems it proper to indicate his apostolic authority. It is clear, however, that the church had a large measure of confidence in him, else they would not have sent to him for special instruction on subjects of critical interest. There had been on their part errors in conduct and faith unbecoming those who professed the Christian faith, and the apostle must speak to these inconsistent believers with the tone of authority. That he does so is found in some striking passages in the epistle. He further affirms, as we have already noted, that his call to the apostleship was by "the will of God," and therein he indicates his thankfulness to God for the great privilege of being his chosen ambassador.

In the prologue of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul associates no one with himself in his salutation. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians he joins with himself "Sosthenes, the brother," the article indicating that he was a well-known brother. Unfortunately, though he was well known to the Corinthians, he is not well known to us, and who he was must be a matter of conjecture. He is supposed by some to have been one of the seventy. By others he is thought to have been the ruler of the synagogue mentioned in Acts xviii, 17. But we are here in a region of conjecture, and must content ourselves with the thought that Sosthenes was a brother of the

Corinthians in church relations holding a position of sufficient prominence to lead Paul to associate him with himself in writing this important letter.

We may notice a further difference in the prologue, as relating to the party addressed. In Romans the apostle writes "to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints;" in Corinthians, "unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." The language, "To all that be in Rome," has been held to indicate that at the time of writing there was no organized church at Rome, but that the letter was addressed to individual Christians or such assemblies as were gathered in private houses without formal organization. This view has been regarded as a help in ascertaining the date of the letter. The Corinthian prologue addresses the church at Corinth, which was well known; yet, the letter was not confined alone to the membership of that church, but was also intended for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours."

It is to be further noted that a very important section in the prologue to the Romans, namely, that which describes the Gospel and also sets forth the humanity and divinity of our Lord, is omitted in the Corinthians. This is easily explained, if we assume the purpose of the former to be a theological treatise, and of the latter to be practical advises the former, as already indicated, demanding elaborateness of preliminary statement; the latter, the setting forth of Paul's authority over a church needing his instructions. Incidentally, we may notice the fact that the apostle affirms the custom of the age to pray to Jesus Christ when he addresses all that "call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." Already men had learned to address

their petitions to him as one of the holy Trinity.

It would be very natural to expect that, in writing a second epistle to the same church, the apostle should use language similar but less full, and such we find to be the case, the chief variation being that he associates Timothy with himself in the salutation instead of Sosthenes. He is evidently writing from a different place, and associates his own son in the Gospel. The language of this prologue is, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia." The resemblances and differences of these two prologues to the Corinthians, as well as the greater brevity of the latter, furnish a striking confirmation of the identity of the authorship of the two epistles. The prologues to the Corinthians, as also that to the Romans, are in entire harmony with our knowledge of the personality and purpose of the writer of the letters. The prologue closes, as the one before noticed, with the usual benediction of "grace" and "peace."