the statements concerning the creation in the first chapter of Genesis by comparing them with the conclusions of modern geological science; for in order to bring out any sort of "harmony," he would have to misrepresent and falsify the meaning of the Biblical account. Again, in the stories of demoniacal possessions, which occur so frequently in the New Testament, the scientific exegete has nothing to do with the question how an evil spirit can take possession of a human soul and dwell therein as in a house. His business is simply with the opinion of the sacred writers. The explanation of the phenomenon, whether caused by the actual indwelling of an evil spirit, or by nervous disease, is the business of psychology, aided by a scientific knowledge of history. In short, the business of scientific exegesis is simply to explain the sacred Scriptures as a body of literature.

But, now, this body of literature is the record of a divine revelation. This revelation is a manifestation of God and a communication of His mind and will to men for their salvation, as for their religious and moral education. The religious and moral ideas conveyed in the language of the sacred writers are, in consequence of the inspiration of these writers, eternal, living, divine truths. And these truths are communicated in order that they may serve as means for the spiritual edification and development of men. To this end, however, they need to be understood and applied to the varying moral and spiritual conditions of men in different times and places. And to effect such understanding and application of Scripture is the business of homiletical or practical interpretation, or preaching. It consists in the apprehension of the eternal ethical and religious principles and ideals contained in Scripture, and in the application of them to men's present ethical and religious needs. These principles and ideals, however, are not dead notions or formulas of doctrine that can be drawn from Scripture, as water may be drawn from a vessel, and given out in an unchanged, unmodified form. They are living energies affecting the Christian mind and calling forth in it the same religious and moral states which were in the minds of the sacred writers, of prophets and apostles, and ena

bling men now, like these, to see and understand present things in the light of eternal, divine truth. And to see present things in the light of eternal truth, and make others see them in the same light, is the office of the preacher. The true preacher, then, needs to be an inspired man, as really as prophets and apostles needed to be inspired men. But such inspiration comes to the preacher now by means of the study of sacred Scripture, as inspiration once came to Elisha the prophet by the playing of the minstrel's harp.

Practical interpretation of Scripture or preaching, then, presupposes scientific or grammatico-historical exegesis. The former cannot begin until the latter is ended. Scientific exegesis must have settled the original signification of a text before the work of the homilist or preacher can properly begin. The preacher, indeed, must be a scientific interpreter before he can be a practical interpreter of Scripture; but the place for the former function is the study, while the pulpit is the place for the latter only. Within the limits fixed by scientific exegesis, it is the business of the homilist to ascertain what a text of Scripture signifies for the life of Christians in general, and for the life of our own age in particular. Practical interpretation, then, means, in the language of Achelis, "not only to set forth a universally valid religious and ethical truth in the particular form in which some text of Scripture presents it, or to cause the light of Christ to shine forth from the text upon the congregation; but it means, further, to anticipate and interpret the thoughts which the truth of the text is adapted to excite in the children of the age, and from the truth of the text to draw the consequences necessary for the edification of the congregation now present." From this it will follow that the homiletic interpretation of Scripture which is true for one age and one place cannot be wholly true for another age and another place. It will follow also that so-called practical commentaries, like those of Matthew Henry, for instance, must lose much of their value when regarded under the conditions of times and places other than those in which they originated. They may be valuable as helps to homiletic discipline, but as direct

aids to homiletic practice their value cannot be estimated very highly. The preacher who should get his themes and the arrangement of his sermons habitually from such sources would probably not be a successful preacher. The only homiletic commentary that can be really useful to the preacher and his audience is a mind well saturated with the truths of the Bible and in constant vital communion with the mind of the Lord.

The appropriateness and usefulness of homiletic interpretation of Scripture will depend, on the one hand, upon a proper sense for the eternal thoughts of God contained in Scripture, and on the other upon a determination on the part of the homilist to find these thoughts only where they are really expressed or implied. The work of practical interpretation, like that of scientific interpretation, must really be exposition, not imposition. The preacher may not, any more than the scientific exegete, import his own thoughts into Scripture. Homiletic interpretation, equally with grammatico-historical exegesis, seeks to understand a given text in its immediate connection. But it also goes beyond the immediate connection, and apprehends the teaching of a particular text as an integral part of the whole organism of divine truth. As an illustration of the necessity of such an organic view of a text, in order to its usefulness for present Christian teaching, reference may be made to I. Cor. 7: 21: "Wast thou called being a slave? care not for it: nay even if thou canst be made free, use it (bondage) rather." Regarding this text merely as it stands, in its immediate connection, as expressing the opinion of St. Paul, at the time when he wrote it, and in relation to the conditions of that time, it means that a slave should not seek liberty even if he has it in his power to do so, and that slavery is neither a misfortune nor a moral wrong. This is what St. Paul says to the Corinthians, and what they doubtless understood him to say. Grammatico-historical exegesis can come to no other conclusion. But this conception contradicts the whole ethical view of man, which is peculiar to Christianity. St. Paul's conception was probably influenced by his view of the nearness of the second advent of Christ and the end of the present world, and his view of the duties of Christians

in the peculiar circumstances of the time. Any agitation for liberty on the part of Christian slaves might have been construed as involving peril to the social order, and might therefore have hindered the spread of Christianity. And, besides, as the end of the world is so near at hand, what is the difference whether men are bond or free? But, now, in the application to the conditions of the present time of such a text as that here under consideration, its temporary and local relations must be stript off. Single texts of Scripture must be viewed in the light of the whole body of Christian truth, before they can become available as homiletic material. This thought is expressed by St. Paul himself in Rom. 12:6:"If we have gift of prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of the faith." The faith, the sum of the doctrinal and ethical teaching of Christianity, is the touchstone by which the preacher, as well as the theologian must test his interpretation of the Bible. But for the faith we may put Christ Himself; and then we may say that it is the business of the preacher to interpret the Bible according to Christ. Any view, or any interpretation, of the Bible that contradicts Christ-the idea of Christ and the mind of Christ-cannot serve the edification of the church, no matter how scientific may be the method by which it was obtained. In fact no amount of exegetical and theological Bible study can make an efficient preacher of one in whom sympathy with the mind of Christ is wanting; and such sympathy with the mind of Christ may often go far to make up any lack of exegetical skill and theological learning. One may be a good preacher without being a great exegete. And we presume that it is something like this that St. Paul means when he says, II. Cor, 3: 6: "Our sufficiency is of God; who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” To stick to the letter, when the letter is in opposition to the spirit, or mind of Christ, is not life, but death; nor is it fidelity to the Bible. The letter of the Bible may be used in such way as to kill the spirit of it; and this is not fidelity to the Bible, but the very opposite. But, after all, one must have a reasonable

knowledge of the letter of Scripture, such as results from real exegetical study, in order to be able to avoid this very rock of literalism. And profound critical study of the Bible according to the best hermeneutical rules, is surely a more favorable condition for obtaining that inspiration which the true preacher needs, than is ignorance of exegetical methods and results.

THE WANE OF INTOLERANCE IN PROTESTANTISM. Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis. Times change, and we change with the times. The world is moving onward. Things do not always remain as they have been from of old. The old order is evermore giving way to a new order. This is true of customs, manners, fashions and institutions; of systems of education, of philosophies, of theologies, and even of religious faiths, and practices, and of churches. In spite of the claims of infallibility and immutability, which some of the churches put forward in their own behalf, it is nevertheless true that churches, too, are subject to the same laws of change and development which pertain to all sublunary things. And in consequence of these laws even churches are not now just what they were in the past.

We have been led to this course of reflection by the reading of an article in The Ram's Horn, for Oct. 27, 1900, on the subject of What is a Lutheran, by Dr. Sylvanus Stall, editor of the Lutheran Observer. The Ram's Horn is a weekly periodical published in Chicago in the interest of various practical Christian causes like the union of Christendom, social purity, equal suffrage, temperance and the like. It is at present engaged in publishing a series of articles on "the great churches of Christendom," written it is said, "by their several leaders, showing what is required of their communicants in faith and duty." Possibly this feature of the publication, of permitting the leaders of the various Christian communions to speak for themselves, may have suggested the peculiar name of it—The Ram's Horn. Of course it alludes to an event in sacred history. But it may be regarded also as a hint to the leaders of the "great churches" to do justice to the bodies which they represent. This idea,