severity of the business depression here-complications perfectly well understood. Why has every adherent of the liquor interest joined the cry that seeks to fasten upon prohibition the cause of depression in this State? Why is it that the tremendous influence of the Eastern press has been wheeled so overwhelmingly into line against this feature of the Kansas laws?

Prohibition has not injured Kansas. It has been a superlative blessing. The increase in the population of the State during the decade of prohibition (1880-1890) was 427,389-a gain of 43 per cent. The gain in taxable property in the same period was $187,146,457-an increase of 116.5 per cent. This feature of the Kansas laws has neither caused nor increased the hard times. Indeed, it is prohibition that enables our industrious and sober people to endure so masterfully the stress of business depression. Our farmers are prosperous and happy. They are paying their indebtedness-interest and principal-with astonishing rapidity.

Let it now be understood that prohibition succeeds in Kansas. In a few of our cities, much heralded and falsely heralded as samples of failure, the saloon yet stands at bay, though under the most serious disabilities of outlawry. As a rule, however, it is banished from the State.

Prohibition succeeds in Topeka, our capital city, a town of forty thousand inhabitants. There is not a shadow of doubt about it. It is not asserted that all intoxicants are banished nor that all drinking is suppressed. Men continue to some extent-to drink privately. It is well known, however, and easily proved, that the saloon is abolished, that there is no exhibition of drunkenness on our beautiful streets, that there is no saloon influence in our politics, that the temptation to drink is removed from our laboring men and from our boys, that the number of desolated homes reduced to poverty and wretchedness as the result of drink is brought to a minimum. It is claimed, and it is claimed truthfully, that we owe this to prohibition. Kansas has found an effective method of dealing with the liquor traffic. Topeka, Kansas.

J. A. LIPPINCOTT.

THE ELEMENTS OF A STRONG CHURCH. PHYSICAL and intellectual strength are not the highest types of strength. The strong man is the holy man. Moral power is the mightiest power. Some rely upon antiquity as an element of strength. The Romish Church is very boastful of her hoary history. But antiquity, per se, is not an element of spiritual power. Historic churches are not always the most successful. There are those who rely upon an elaborate ritual as an element of strength, and cry out loudly against the barrenness of a simple and extempore service. But it is well known that ceremonial splendor is not spiritual power. Many a church, whose liturgy is elaborate, is a moral cemetery, and its chants are only so many requiems over its departed glory. The apostolic Church was not a ritualistic Church.

Some rely upon wealth as an element of strength. The Church cannot

well do without silver and gold, but a long subscription list is not the highest proof of its power. A church may be a paying concern financially and yet a failure in the great work of saving men.

Numbers to some are an element of strength, but numbers are not always an evidence of real success. Buddhism musters a far greater number of adherents than does Christianity, but that does not prove it superior as a religious system. Sardis, with its few names, was a much stronger Church than lukewarm Laodicea with its many names. What, then, are the elements of strength in the Church?

1. LOVE OF TRUTH. Error is ephemeral, truth is eternal; and "the Church" must ever be "the pillar and ground of the truth." Knowledge is power, and knowledge of divine things is the highest power.

2. HOLINESS. The Church is to be composed of consecrated men-set apart, like the vessels of the temple, to the service of God. Forgiveness is not the great end of the Gospel, but holiness. Holiness is not an experience to be enjoyed by a few, but it is an absolute necessity for all. In the presence of a holy life critics and scoffers are virtually paralyzed. 3. ENTHUSIASM. A man with foresight in his head and fire in his heart is worth a dozen cold cynics who live in perpetual winter. Men never fired by grand resolves live and die weaklings. Double your enthusiasm, and you double your Christian activity and usefulness.

4. LIBERALITY. Paul says, "On the first day of the week let every one lay by in store as God hath prospered him." There must be sacrifice in our gifts. True giving begins only when sacrifice begins.

5. PRAYERFULNESS. Prayer is the very soul of all spiritual life. "The fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Much to the suppliant, much to his family, much to the Church, and much to the world.

6. UNITY. Union of men with men is an element of strength. The weakest powers united become amazingly powerful. The three hundred at Thermopyla were invincible because united. In every strong and prosperous Church there is a fusion of spirits, a oneness of heart.

7. UNITY WITH GOD. With God on our side whom have we to fear? The felt presence of God makes the timid brave and the weak strong. The vine that clings to a sister vine is ill-supported, and men who lean upon men are in danger, but those who cling to the divine Rock are eternally safe. Let us be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might. Jersey City, N. J. D. R. LOWRIE.

SOME EXCEPTIONS.

IN the Methodist Review for November-December, 1891, pp. 849, 8qq., the Rev. Professor Dr. Luther T. Townsend has written forcefully concerning the "Genesis of the New Testament, with a Few Words Respecting Higher Criticism." I have no pretensions to New Testament scholarship, and therefore do not venture to question either his facts or conclusions in that field. I must, however, take exception to certain statements. concerning Old Testament criticism.

Professor Townsend, who is sincerely anxious for the truth, will, I have no doubt, be glad to have his attention directed to a passage in which he has unintentionally misrepresented the views of certain prominent scholars. After quoting a vigorous passage from Professor Briggs, which sums up the results which are claimed to have been reached by Old Testament scholars, Professor Townsend says: "We hope not to lose caste among scholars if we emphatically deny these conclusions of Professor Briggs, and if we choose to follow the lead of such men as:" and here follows a list of eighteen eminent names. In this number are several names of men who are on the side of Professor Briggs, and therefore are not properly to be cited as they are by Professor Townsend. The following may be here mentioned.

1. Delitzsch. Professor Delitzsch accepted the results of the criticism which separates the Pentateuch into several parts. Vid. Neuer Commentar über die Genesis (Leipzig, 1887), pp. 17, sqq., et passim. He accepted the deutero-Isaiah. Vid. Messianische Weissagungen (Leipzig, 1890), pp. 137, 8qq. He accepted the late origin of Daniel (circa 168 B.C.), ibid., p. 158.

2. Nöldeke. Professor Nöldeke is on the side of the documentary hypothesis, and was among its earlier defenders. Vid. his Alttestamentliche Literatur, 1868, and Untersuchungen zur Kritik des A. T's., 1869, and cf. Wright, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, 1890), p. 91, and Bissell, The Pentateuch (New York, 1855), pp. 67, 8qq.

3. Dillmann. Professor Dillmann is clearly with advanced literary criticism, even though he may properly be termed generously conservative with reference to the religious side of the controversy. Vid. Ueber die Composition des Hexateuch in his Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Joshua (Leipzig, 1886), pp. 593, sqq., and also his new Commentary in the same series, Dei Prophet Jesaia, 1890.

4. Strack. Professor Strack is also upon the critical side, though more conservative than Dillmann. As to his views on the Pentateuch, vid. Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Nördlingen, 1888), pp. 13, 899.; as to Isaiah, ibid., p. 43; and as to Daniel, ibid., pp. 68, 897.

More references might be given, but these will suffice to make it clear that Professor Townsend has erred concerning these men. Further, the present writer was a pupil of three of these scholars (Delitzsch, Dillmann, and Strack), and is personally acquainted with the fourth. His notebooks of lectures and his recollections of conversational discussions would make even a stronger case. ROBERT W. ROGERS. Carlisle, Pa.

"REGENERATION AS A FORCE IN REFORM MOVEMENTS." IN the article under the above caption, in the November-December number of the Review, a writer seems inclined to go to extremes in his arraignment of the Church. One is tempted to ask whether these strictures are the work of a "prentice hand" in moral pathology, or of a veteran who has fallen into the hands of the Philistines and suffered the

loss of his eyes? It is fitting that such a low view of regeneration should crave the support of the article quoted from Johnson's Cyclopedia—an article written by a Unitarian, and not wanting any of the significant "ear-marks" which distinguish that system of thought.

Granted that the record of the general Church on the slavery question is not one to be proud of, it may nevertheless afford us comfort to recall the fact that our branch of the Church suffered itself to be disrupted rather than recede from its high ground of protest against the curse. A butcher could soon dispose of a cancerous growth in the human system at which the best surgeon in the land would stand aghast. God had been a long time patient with slavery in Bible times. St. Paul had sent the runaway slave, Onesimus, back to his master, Philemon. All this to the butcher system of treating cancers-looks like dalliance. Says Professor George P. Fisher, in his review of Ingersoll-who had charged the Bible with upholding slavery:

If Christianity did not abolish slavery by an instantaneous decree, which would have been only a brutum fulmen, it put gunpowder under the system. For it was the influence of the Gospel which eventually abolished slavery in the Roman empire and serfdom in the Middle Ages; and it is the direct and indirect influence of Christianity which has abolished modern slavery, notwithstanding the defense of it by undiscerning or interested clergymen and churches.

It is impossible in one or two paragraphs to notice all the strange statements of the article concerning regeneration. But think of a Methodist preacher affirming that "if every individual in the United States should be 'regenerated' in an hour, this wholesale conversion of the community -under present methods-would not result in a single reform in the industrial or social world." "Present methods" are certainly better than the methods which they supplanted, and the spirit of improvement is constantly at work.

If the writer is right in his general drift, "our preaching is vain." It is not Paul the apostle, nor evangelists like Wesley and Moody who are to reform men and help them into a better life, but Spencer, Bellamy, and Tolstoi, with their science of sociology! Unsuccessful attempts to reconstruct society have been often made. But cui bono?

Has the Church paid no attention to social problems? Something like a community of goods was tried by the early disciples, but its success appears not to have been brilliant, and it failed to secure general adoption. Germany leads the world in socialistic agitation; but is labor better paid in Germany than in our own country? The professed followers of Christ are not in the ascendency numerically; they cannot outvote the children of the wicked one: but it is apparent that liberty, learning, broad philanthropy, and true fraternity flourish best where evangelical Christians constitute at least a considerable minority of the population.

Is there not a better way to spur the Church on to a more practical zeal and a broader usefulness than by condemning its spiritual methods and refusing to appreciate the results already accomplished?

Marietta, Ohio.

R. F. BISHOP.

THE ITINERANTS' CLUB.

THE PREACHER AND SERMON-BUILDING.

We concluded an article in the last number of the Review on the subject of sermon-building with the remark that if the preacher, while preparing for his pulpit work, would have his intellectual faculties at their best he must be a good man. Among other things, he never should do any violence to his conscience; for any violation of the dictates of conscience will betray itself in the sermon. "Men and brethren," says Paul, "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." He never could have done the work he did, in kind or extent, except for that implicit obedience and consecration.' And every preacher should bear in mind this additional fact, that not to hear and obey conscience is to silence it, and leave one with no inner guide. And, too, the minister must practice what he preaches. If he preaches one thing while practicing another we can see no hope for him in this world or in the

next.

The preacher, as we may now suppose, is healthy in body, mind, and soul. He is about to build a sermon. What steps is he to take, or what methods shall he adopt?

We hardly need say, what is evident without the saying, that the sermon-builder must have available materials. One cannot build a sermon, any more than one can build a house, out of nothing. We have already called attention to the well-nigh infinite sources of sermonic materials. The next questions relate to the art of collecting and preserving those materials, so that they will be available when wanted. Our directions as to the collecting of materials are brief, for one can collect subject-matter much more easily than he can preserve and make it available. In a word, the preacher should have an alert mind, a keen eye, an acute hearing, and, with his rifle always loaded and in his hand, he should be able to shoot knowledge on the wing. Complying with these conditions, not many years shall pass before there will come within his reach and touch a vast amount of sermonic materials.

But the preserving and the making of these materials available at the right moment require distinct, and in some cases laborious, processes, especially when the memory is defective.

Were the preacher's memory absolutely perfect he could summon at will all the facts relating to a given subject that ever have entered into his consciousness; and could, therefore, dispense with many appliances needed by an imperfect memory. But the perfect memory is rare. Hence the question, How shall I preserve sermonic materials so that without delay or confusion I can command them when they are needed? is asked by almost every clergyman. This question usually has a melancholy tinge, growing out of the consciousness that, had the methods of husbanding one's resources been perfect, much valuable time wasted in a fruitless 20-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. VIII.